Weak Definites and Generics - Cognitive Science

Weak Definites and Generics
Bachelor Thesis
by
Steffen Vogel
svogel@uni-osnabrueck.de
September 21, 2011
Institute of Cognitive Science
Albrechtstraße 28
49069 Osnabrück, Germany
office@ikw.uni-osnabrueck.de
Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Peter Bosch, MS Maria Cieschinger

Table of Contents
1 Weak definites 4
1.1 Weak and strong definites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Properties of weak definites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Weak definites and other nominal expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.1 Idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.2 Bare singulars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Formalization by Aguilar-Guevara and Zwarts 10
2.1 Realization relation R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Usage predicate U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Kind Lifting Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.1 Nature of kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2 Restrictions on kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 Problems with the formalization 16
3.1 Blockage by discourse referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Blockage by modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Extension of the set of stereotypical usage events . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 Scope of the formalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 Intermediate conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 Weak definites and concepts 21
5 Weak definites in the German language 23
5.1 Prepositional phrases headed by contracted forms . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2 Prepositional phrases headed by non-contracted forms . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3 Semantic enrichment subclass in German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
References 30
2

Abstract
In this thesis, we discuss different approaches to weak definites as introduced by Carlson
& Sussman (2005). These nominal expressions are characterized by the lack of
a uniqueness presupposition and by enriched meaning. Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts
(2010) suggest that weak definites refer to kinds and not to specific objects and that
uniqueness is given on the kind-level. Their suggestion is that semantic enrichment
occurs due to stereotypical usages of kinds. In this thesis, we point out problems with
this approach and ask whether a theory of weak definites focussed on kinds is plausible.
Since semantic enrichment does not occur with weak definites alone but only
in the context of certain verb phrases, we suggest that a theory that relies heavier on
the context is more plausible. Such an approach by Bosch (2010) is outlined in which
semantic enrichment is explained based on the availability of concepts. In the final
section of this thesis, we look at weak definites in German. Weak definites similar to
those in English exist in German as well but the availability of different syntactic forms
reveals another use of definites pointed out by Cieschinger & Bosch (2011). They show
that definites which normally receive a weak reading can be used as so-called common
ground definites and receive a strong reading when the set of possible referents is a
singleton. We end this thesis with the conclusion that both the kind and the concept
approach still leave some questions open.
3

1 Weak definites
1.1 Weak and strong definites
In this thesis, we focus on those definite noun phrases (NPs) that begin with the
definite determiner the. Such definite NPs are traditionally interpreted as referring
to an entity which is unique or at least salient in a discourse context. If the entity
is not unique, that is, there are either more than one or no entities at all matching
the description, any sentence in which these NPs occur is either always false (Russell
1905) or cannot be assigned any truth value due to a presupposition failure (Strawson
1950). For example (1), this traditional uniqueness approach yields the desired result.
(1) Anna is putting the book on the table.
The meaning of (1) is clear in a context where there are exactly one book and exactly
one table. If there are several books or tables or none at all, the intended meaning is
not apparent and truth value assignments are problematic. These cases in which the
uniqueness of the entity is an actual presupposition are referred to as strong definites.
In contrast, there are other cases in which the uniqueness presupposition is too strong.
These definite NPs are referred to as weak definites.
(2) Anna is reading the newspaper.
Proposition (2) is not only true in situations in which there is exactly one newspaper
which is read by Anna. It is also true when there are several newspapers lying
around and Anna is reading one or several of them. Reading the newspaper has a
special, somehow idiomatic nature which is further analyzed later in this thesis. For
now, it is sufficient to state that the newspaper does not need to refer to a unique entity.
To find out whether or not an NP has a weak reading in a certain context, two tests
are applicable. The first one by Carlson & Sussman (2005) is a verb phrase (VP)
ellipsis test which consists of two sentences. The second sentence contains an elliptic
VP which takes its meaning from the VP of the first sentence. The verb in the first
sentence has a definite NP as its direct object. If the object of the elliptic VP has to
refer to the same entity as the object of the first one, the reading of the definite is
strong, otherwise it is weak.
(3) a) Anna read the newspaper and John did, too.
b) Anna read the book and John did, too.
In situation (3a), it is possible that Anna and John read different newspapers and the
newspaper receives a weak reading. The reading of the book in (3b) is strong because
Anna and John had to read the same book.
The VP ellipsis test, however, is not flawless. There are situations in which it justifies
a weak reading while it is actually blocked. Therefore, it is only a necessary but not
a sufficient test. After introducing the second test, we will use that test to give an
example by Cieschinger (2011) to indicate the shortcomings of the VP ellipsis test.
4

The second test is concerned with the knowledge about an entity that is introduced
using a definite NP. If the definite is strong, the identity of the entity should be known
due to the uniqueness presupposition. If it is weak, there is no such presupposition
and the lack of further knowledge is not an issue. In fact, if the identity of the entity is
known, the otherwise available weak reading of a definite gets blocked and it receives
a strong reading (see (6b)).
The store in (4a) is a weak definite, the school in (4b) is a strong one. When asked
to further specify the identity of the object, the inability to do so is unproblematic in
case of the store. The identity of the school in (4b), in contrast, must be known.
(4) a) John is going to the store. I don’t know which one.
b) John is going to the school. ?I don’t know which one.
For an example where the VP ellipsis test fails, imagine a reading club. Every member
of the club is assigned one book per month and no two members read the same book.
This situation seems to establish the book as a new weak definite, justified by the VP
ellipsis test in (5a). However, (5b) shows that A must know about the identity of the
book, thus blocking the weak reading.
(5) a) John is reading the book and Anna does, too.
b) A: “John is reading the book.”
B: “Which one?”
A: “The one assigned to him.” vs. “?I don’t know.”
It is important to note that the weak reading can be blocked in most situations by
adding more context. While the newspaper receives a weak reading in (2) (here repeated
as (6a)), only the strong reading is accessible in (6b). The additional context in
(6b) establishes an anaphoric relationship between the newspaper and its antecedent,
a newspaper. This determines the identity of the newspaper and only allows the strong
reading.
(6) a) Anna is reading the newspaper.
b) They can read a book or a newspaper. While John has picked the
book, Anna is reading the newspaper.
One of the few weak definites in English that cannot be turned into a strong definite
is the pokey, a colloquial term for prison. 1
1.2 Properties of weak definites
In this thesis, we focus on weak definites as introduced by Carlson & Sussman (2005)
and formalized by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010). While the non-uniqueness as
shown in (2) is the characterizing property of weak definites in general, the weak definites
of Carlson & Sussman show in addition some distributional restrictions as well
as a semantic peculiarity. Because of this peculiarity, we will refer to Carlson & Sussman’s
weak definites as the semantic enrichment subclass or, for simplicity reasons,
as weak definites in the following.
1 Example from Carlson & Sussman (2005).
5

The semantic peculiarity is a semantic enrichment that takes place for the weak reading
of definites. It can be regarded as the characterizing property of this subclass.
Whenever the weak reading is accessible, a sentence carries both the literal meaning
of the definite as well as some stereotypical addition.
The event described in (7a) 2 is not only a physical movement of John to a building
which serves medical purposes. It also implies that John went there to get medical
treatment or to work as a doctor or a nurse himself. If the context excludes these
stereotypical circumstances, the weak reading gets blocked. In (7a), it is sufficient
that John went to any hospital. The non-stereotypical action of (7b) blocks the weak
reading and makes it necessary for him to go to a specific hospital.
(7) a) John went to the hospital.
b) John went to the hospital because he had to pick up his wife.
Any theory of weak definites must capture this stereotypical enrichment. Yet, it can
also use it to explain the distributional restrictions on weak definites. Just like not all
definites in all contexts evoke additional meaning, not all definites can have a weak
reading in all contexts.
Weak definites are restricted to the object position of certain verbs and prepositions.
(8) a) Anna called the doctor. vs. Anna sued the doctor.
b) John went to the store. vs. John went around the store.
Calling the doctor entails asking for medical assistance while suing the doctor has no
such common consequences. Likewise, going to the store entails going shopping while
going around the store implies no such typical activity. Similarly to (8), the following
restrictions can also all be accounted for by checking whether semantic enrichment
occurs or not.
Some nouns never occur as the head of weak definites, others only in singular or
plural form. (9a) and (9b) are examples for these lexical and number-morphological
restrictions. In each example, only the definite in the first sentence has a weak reading.
(9) a) Anna went to the store. vs. Anna went to the school.
John called the doctor. vs. John called the surgeon.
b) Anna checked the calendar. vs. Anna checked the calendars.
John went to the mountains. vs. John went to the mountain.
A further restriction also pointed out by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts is the modifiability
of weak definites. Modifiers that establish subtypes of weak definites can maintain
the weak reading while others always block it. This holds for both prenominal and
postnominal modification. In (10a) and (10b), only the modifiers psychiatric and eye
establish subtypes and maintain the weak reading.
2 Examples (8b), (9b), (10b) and (13) from Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010). Examples (7), (8a),
(9a), (10a), (11) and (12) analogue to examples from Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010).
6

(10) a) Anna went to the psychiatric
hospital.
vs. Anna went to the new hospital.
b) John went to the eye doctor. vs. John went to the doctor who
works in the medical center.
Another property of weak definites is closely related to their non-uniqueness. When a
weak definite occurs together with a quantifier, the weak definite takes narrow scope.
In (11a), the newspaper takes narrow scope with respect to every man and each man
can read a different newspaper. This effect is blocked in (11b) where each man has to
read the same book.
(11) a) Every man was reading the newspaper.
b) Every man was reading the book.
Finally, it seems that weak definites do not establish discourse referents and cannot
be used as antecedents for anaphors. This is in contrast to indefinites which share the
non-uniqueness of weak definites but actually establish referents.
The second sentence of (12a), which needs an antecedent for the pronoun it, seems to
block the weak reading of the hospital in order to make the anaphoric relation possible.
Such a subsequent change is not needed for the indefinite in (12b).
(12) a) Anna went to the hospital. When she arrived, she found out that it
was closed.
b) Anna went to a hospital. When she arrived, she found out that it was
closed.
Definite NPs in subject position show a different behavior than those in object position.
As the subject of episodic sentences, only the strong reading is available. These
are always statements about known entities, as seen in (13a). Definite NPs in generic
sentences, as in (13b), however, have properties that closely resemble those of weak
definites. This might be the case because both classes show kind reference (see section
2.4).
(13) a) The newspaper lies on the table.
The hospital has a well-known research centre.
b) The newspaper brings people their daily news.
The hospital is the place where most children are born.
1.3 Weak definites and other nominal expressions
1.3.1 Idioms
One approach of dealing with weak definites is to regard them as idiomatic expressions.
According to Nunberg, Sag, & Wasow (1994, pp. 492–493), conventionality is the
only necessary property of idioms which are otherwise hard to define precisely. They
are conventional in the sense that their meaning cannot be predicted based on their
structure and their components alone. This also holds true for weak definites, although
to a lesser degree. The individual words of an idiom like kick the bucket do not contain
the information necessary to deduce its intended meaning, namely die. It has to be
learned explicitly due to its figurative nature. The meaning of its parts is completely
7

lost: dying has nothing to do with hitting an object with one’s foot or with a container.
In contrast, the conventional semantic enrichment of weak definites is more closely
related to the literal meaning, which is always preserved. A sentence like (2), Anna is
reading the newspaper, necessarily describes an event where the action is reading and
the theme, that is, the object that is read, is a newspaper. Reading the newspaper is
conventional insofar as the semantic enrichment takes place only due to the familiarity
of the speaker with the use of the phrase.
One can imagine a society where news are not published in a vast variety of print
media but where every newspaper is specialized on one topic. In such a world, the
identity of the newspaper would be much more important than it is today and the
weak interpretation would be blocked (14).
(14) A: “Anna is reading the newspaper.”
B: “Which one?”
A: “The one dealing with politics.” vs. “?I don’t know.”
The figurative nature of most idioms makes them informal and allows them to convey
an emotional judgement, for example, the euphemism to kick the bucket for dying.
This does not hold true for weak definites which are always formal and neutral.
As suggested by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts, it is reasonable to regard weak definites
as idiomatically combining expressions, as introduced by Nunberg et al. (1994, p. 496).
An idiomatically combining expression has an idiomatic nature but the meaning of its
parts is not completely lost. Indicator for this compositionality is the modifiability
of idiomatically combining expressions. The idiom leave no stone unturned can be
altered to leave no legal stone unturned without losing its idiomatic status. The
resulting change in meaning is similar to the subtype change which is possible for
weak definites as between go to the hospital and go to the psychiatric hospital. Seeing
weak definites as idiomatically combining expressions satisfies both the intuition that
they have an idiomatic status as well as their compositional properties.
1.3.2 Bare singulars
Another class of nominal expressions that shows close resemblance to weak definites is
the class of bare singulars. A bare singular is a singular NP without a determiner, for
example, church and bed in (15a). While it is common for abstract nouns such as grief
and happiness (15b) or mass nouns such as wood and milk (15c) to occur without a
determiner, bare singulars are very restricted.
(15) a) John went to church in the morning. He is in bed now.
b) He was stricken with grief. Happiness filled her heart.
c) The shelf was made of wood. Milk was spilled over the counter.
Carlson & Sussman (2005) show that weak definites share their restrictions as well
as their other properties with bare singulars. Bare singulars are lexically restricted,
that is, it is a feature of the noun itself whether it can occur without a determiner
(16a). Which verb or preposition can govern the noun is also a feature of the noun
itself (16b). When they occur together with quantified phrases, bare singulars take
narrow scope. In (16c), every criminal could have been sent to a different prison. Bare
singulars also show semantic enrichment. The criminals in (16c) did not only move to
8

a building that serves as a jail but they went there because they were incarcerated.
Finally, bare singulars do not introduce discourse referents (16d).
(16) a) *John went to store in the morning. *He is in kitchen now.
b) *John went around church in the morning. *He works in bed now.
c) Every criminal went to prison.
d) John went to church. ?It was built in the 18 th century.
One difference between weak definites and bare singulars is pointed out by Scholten
(2010, p. 9). While weak definites allow subtype modification (17a), bare singulars
can never be modified (17b).
(17) a) John went to the psychiatric hospital.
b) *John went to Catholic church in the morning. *He is in double bed
now.
Weak definites and bare singulars have a complementary distribution. When a bare
singular construct is available, the weak reading of a definite in the corresponding
VP is blocked. Since the VP go to prison is grammatical in English, the reading of
the prison in go to the prison is necessarily strong (18a). The reading of the newspaper
in read the newspaper can be weak because there is no VP read newspaper (18b).
(18) a) John went to prison. vs. John went to the prison.
b) *Anna is reading newspaper. vs. Anna is reading the newspaper.
Stvan (2009) argues that some VPs containing bare singulars are cases of semantic incorporation.
The verb incorporates the bare singular that is its direct object, forming
a strong union. The meaning conveyed by such a VP contains the meaning contributions
of its parts and can contain semantic enrichment. This is the same for weak
definites and their governing predicates.
It is interesting to note that there are less VPs containing bare singulars than VPs
with weak definites in object position. It seems plausible to assume that the tighter
bond between verb and bare singular restricts their availability more than the looser
bond between verb and weak definite, resulting in a smaller number of bare singular
constructs. Another interesting difference is the lack of a determiner. This syntactic
peculiarity always prevents bare singulars from referring to specific objects, while the
difference between the weak and the strong reading of potential weak definites is at
least partly context-dependent.
9

2 Formalization by Aguilar-Guevara and Zwarts
Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010) develop a formalization of weak definites that captures
all of their properties, especially their non-uniqueness and their semantic enrichment.
The formalization also supports the traditional uniqueness interpretation
of definites. This seeming contradiction is resolved by distinguishing object and kind
level. A realization relation, a usage predicate and a kind lifting rule are the central
components of the formalization.
For the formalization, Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts follow Parsons (1990) in assuming
that propositions describe events. The predicate of the sentence determines the nature
of the event and assigns roles to the other constituents of the sentence. The most important
roles in the following examples are agent, theme, source and goal. The agent
is the one performing the action, that is, the subject in an active sentence. The theme
is the entity acted upon, that is, the direct object of the predicate. The source is the
starting point and the goal the end point of a physical movement. (19a) describes a
reading event where Anna is the agent and a book is the theme and (19b) is a formalization
inspired by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts where the variable e stands for the
event and the variable x for the book.
(19) a) Anna is reading a book.
b) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ ∃x[book(x) ∧ Theme(e)=x]]
2.1 Realization relation R
A strong definite denotes a unique, specific object. The existence of the object is
formalized by using an existential quantifier and the uniqueness by appending an exclamation
mark 3 (20a). Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts argue that weak definites do not
denote specific objects but instantiations of specific kinds. The nature of these kinds
and whether they are the same kinds used to explain generics will be discussed in
section 2.4. To indicate that an object is an instantiation of a kind they use the twoplace
relation R. The second argument of R is a kind, in (20b) the kind newspaper,
and the first one is an instantiation of that kind, in (20b) represented by the variable xi.
(20) a) Anna is reading the book.
∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ ∃!x[book(x) ∧ Theme(e)=x]]
b) Anna is reading the newspaper.
∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ ∃xi[R(xi,newspaperk) ∧ Theme(e)=xi]] 4
The realization relation covers some of the properties of weak definites and also maintains
the traditional uniqueness of definites. Although the newspaper does not denote
a unique newspaper, it denotes a unique kind, namely the kind newspaper. The instantiation
itself does not have to be unique. Thus, R enforces uniqueness on the kind
level and allows non-uniqueness on the object level.
3 See Heim & Kratzer (2009, pp. 84-85).
4 The index i of xi indicates that x is an object or a sum of objects. xk is used to indicate that x
is a kind.
10

The instantiation is not always a single object but can also be a sum of objects. That is
useful in situations like (21), assuming that John did not take a single train from Munich
to Hamburg but had to switch trains in Cologne, that is, he took in fact two trains.
(21) John took the train from Munich to Hamburg.
∃e[take(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ ∃xi[R(xi,traink) ∧ Theme(e)=xi] ∧
Source(e)=munich ∧ Goal(e)=hamburg]
Weak definites do not seem to introduce discourse referents. This can be formalized
by not explicitly introducing a variable for the instantiations and, instead of using
an existential quantifier, setting the filler of the role as the first argument of the realization
relation. Both formalizations are truth-conditionally equivalent but since a
formalization like (22a) introduces a discourse referent and one like (22b) does not,
their discourse properties are different.
(22) Anna is reading the newspaper.
a) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ ∃xi[R(xi,newspaperk) ∧ Theme(e)=xi]]
b) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk)]
The formalization in (22b) also works for the VP ellipsis test. This test demonstrates
that for weak definites the theme of the predicate can be different in both sentences.
Since the instantiation is not introduced by a variable, this is formalized easily by
conjoining two events (23).
(23) Anna read the newspaper and John did, too.
∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk)] ∧
∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk)]
That weak definites take narrowest scope can be formalized similarly. For every couple
in (24), there is a new go-to event with a new, potentially different goal.
(24) Every couple goes to the cinema.
∀x[couple(x) → ∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=x ∧ R(Goal(e),cinemak)]
2.2 Usage predicate U
The semantic enrichment of weak definites is not arbitrary. For weak definites in direct
object position, the additional meaning evoked reflects the most typical circumstances
under which the action takes place. In (25a), the go-to action is usually combined
with getting medical assistance or working as a medical professional oneself. Aguilar-
Guevara & Zwarts capture this stereotypical enrichment with the two-place predicate
U (25b). The first argument of this usage predicate is an event and the second a kind.
The predicate is true if and only if the event is a stereotypical usage of the kind.
(25) a) John went to the hospital.
b) ∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),hospitalk) ∧
U(e,hospitalk)] 5
5 As Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts point out, this kind of formalization is not completely precise. The
hospital is not used during the go-to event e but e is the necessary requirement for another event
e’ during which the stereotypical usage of the hospital occurs. This is unproblematic because the
11

λe[U(e,hospitalk)] is the set of all stereotypical events for hospitals and λe[go_to(e)]
the set of all go-to events. If the intersection of both sets is non-empty, that is, there
exists an event e such that e is a go-to event and in e a hospital is used in its stereotypical
function, then this e renders U true and the weak reading is available.
Modifying hospital with a non-subtype modifier like nearby leads to an empty set of
stereotypical usage events. The intersection of any set with this empty set is also
empty. Consequently, there is no event satisfying the usage predicate and the formula
is always false, that is, the weak reading is blocked.
Subtype modification usually leads to a smaller subset of stereotypical usage events.
For example, λe[U(e,hospitalk)] contains all events in which a patient with a broken
leg is in a hospital but these events are not elements of λe[U(e,psychiatric_hospitalk)].
This reduction raises the question whether subtype modification with several modifiers
can lead to an empty set and block the weak reading completely.
Canceling the implicit semantic enrichment of (25a) can be done by explicitly stating
the reason why John went to the hospital (26). To clean the windows overwrites the
assumed stereotypical usage of the hospital, resulting in a blockage of the weak reading.
Since cleaning is not part of the semantic enrichment, there is no cleaning event
e that is element of λe[U(e,hospitalk)] and can satisfy U.
(26) John went to the hospital to clean the windows.
The stereotypical usage can give a first explanation of the restrictions on weak definites.
Only some nouns can occur as the head of weak definites and weak definites
can only be in object position of some verbs and prepositions. For a noun to have a
weak reading, it has to have a stereotypical usage. Otherwise, λe[U(e,noun_kindk)] is
empty and U never satisfied. To have such a usage, it cannot be too general. While
the actions performed at a store or at a hospital are clear, this does not hold for their
hypernym building. λe[U(e,buildingk)] is empty due to the unspecific nature of building
and the building cannot have a weak reading. Furthermore, the phrase containing
the definite must support its stereotypical function. Suing the doctor or going around
the store prevents getting medical assistance or doing some shopping, respectively,
thus blocking the normal functions of the kinds doctor and store. Aguilar-Guevara &
Zwarts show that verbs and prepositions which allow weak readings are often related
to locations (go to, be at, visit), name necessary conditions for the stereotypical usage
(open [the window]) or refer directly to the usage (read [the newspaper], listen to [the
radio], play [the piano]).
One aspect not discussed by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts is that specificity of the kind
is not a sufficient condition for a definite to have a weak reading. The means of transportation
in (27) are all at different levels of specificity but none can have a weak
reading.
(27) Anna went to the {vehicle, car, truck}.
relation between e and e’ can be formalized explicitly.
12

It is not clear what else contributes to the restrictions on nouns that can be the head
of weak definites. There seem to be nouns denoting objects with very stereotypical
functions that nonetheless cannot occur in weak definites. A hotel is normally used to
stay over night there. Yet, according to Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts, the weak reading
in (28) is blocked.
(28) John went to the hotel.
2.3 Kind Lifting Rule
The normal analysis of verbs and prepositions happens on the object level. That is
appropriate for strong definites. To introduce the realization relation R and the usage
predicate U and to lift the interpretation from the object level to the kind level,
Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts introduce the Kind Lifting Rule, quoted below:
(KLR) Kind Lifting Rule: If V is a transitive verb (or verb-preposition combination)
with interpretation λxiλe[V(e) ∧ Theme(e)=xi] then V also has the meaning
λxkλe[V(e) ∧ R(Theme(e),xk) ∧ U(e,xk)].
In the common interpretation, the verb V takes an individual, xi, and an event as
arguments. After the shift from object to kind level, V takes a kind, xk, and an event
as its arguments. While KLR is defined on all transitive verbs, the actual availability
of the weak reading is regulated by the usage predicate U. For verbs that can never
have a weak definite as their direct object, U will always be false. For other verbs the
kind argument determines whether U is true or false.
The application of KLR results in ambiguous verb meanings. The common interpretation
of the verb read leads to a contingent formula (29a). So does the interpretation
after the application of KLR with a kind argument whose stereotypical usage event
set has a non-empty intersection with the set of reading events (29b). For kinds where
U is always false, the resulting formula is a contradiction (29c) and only the common
interpretation can be true (29a).
(29) a) John is reading the book.
∃!xi∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ book(xi) ∧ Theme(e)=xi]
b) John is reading the newspaper.
∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk) ∧
U(e,newspaperk)]
c) John is reading the book.
∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),bookk) ∧ U(e,bookk)]
With the realization relation R, the usage predicate U and the Kind Lifting Rule, the
formalization of weak definites by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts is complete.
The formalization can be used to show that weak definites are truth-conditionally
similar to indefinites. Indefinites also only require existence and not uniqueness. They
are usually formalized with an existential quantifier but for the comparison with weak
definites, the realization relation R can also be used. Both formalizations for the
indefinite, (30a) and (30b), are truth-conditionally equivalent and the only difference
to the weak definite in (30c) is the truth value of U.
13

(30) John is reading a newspaper.
a) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk)]
b) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ ∃x[newspaper(x) ∧ Theme(e)=x]]
John is reading the newspaper.
c) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk) ∧
U(e,newspaperk)]
A central theoretical concept of Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts’s approach to weak definites
is the kind term. The discussion of these kinds concludes the description of the
formalization.
2.4 Kinds
Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts argue that the kinds used in their theory of weak definites
are the same as the kinds used to explain generics. Generic statements are statements
like (31a) and (31b) 6 which are not about specific entities but, in this case, about
potatoes, gentlemen and transistors in general.
(31) a) A potato contains vitamin C.
A gentleman opens doors for ladies.
b) The potato was first cultivated in South America.
Shockley invented the transistor.
There are two types of genericity (Krifka 2003, p. 180). The examples in (31a) are
characterizing statements which state general properties of sets of entities. The definite
NPs in the examples in (31b) show kind reference. Only these kind-referring usages of
definite NPs are of interest in the context of weak definites. 7
2.4.1 Nature of kinds
The denotation of kind terms is not in the domain of objects but in the taxonomic
domain, that is, in the domain of kinds and subkinds. The difference is illustrated in
(32) where the lion in a) refers to a specific lion while the lion in b) refers to the kind.
(32) a) The lion sleeps in its cage.
b) The lion is a carnivore.
For the formalization 8 of (32a), the common noun lion is used. Its denotation is the
set of all individual lions (33a). The denotation of the lion is the single element of
λx.lion(x) that matches the description in the situation (33b). In contrast, the denotation
of the taxonomic noun lion as used in (32b) is the singleton set that contains
as its only element the kind Panthera leo (33c). Accordingly, the denotation of the
lion, when used generically, is the single element of λxk.lionT (xk), that is, Panthera
leo. The set of all instantiations of Panthera leo is the set of all lions, that is, λx.lion(x).
6 Examples from Krifka (2003).
7 Bare plurals like Dogs in Dogs bark. which are kind-referring as well are also not of relevance
here because we am only interested in definites.
8 The indices T and k are used to mark that the noun is taxonomic or refers to the kind, respectively.
The iota operator ι marks that x is the only element matching the description.
14

(33) object reference:
a) [[lion]] = λx.lion(x) = {lionA, lionB, lionC, ...}
b) [[the lion]] = ιx.lion(x) = lionA
kind reference:
c) [[lion]] = λxk.lionT (xk) = {Panthera leo}
d) [[the lion]] = ιxk.lionT (xk) = Panthera leo
When modifying weak definites, only those modifiers still allow a weak reading that
keep the noun in the taxonomic domain (Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts). For hospital, the
modifier psychiatric is in this way taxonomic while the modifier new is not. Accordingly,
psychiatric_hospital is an element of the set of all subkinds of hospital and the
psychiatric hospital can receive both the object and the kind reference formalization,
as shown for lion in (33). In contrast, new_hospital is not an element of the set and,
therefore, can only have object reference.
2.4.2 Restrictions on kinds
Generics are less restricted than weak definites. According to Krifka et al. (1995,
p. 11), generics can refer to any well-established kind. A definition of well-established
kind is not given but the term is introduced to distinguish the Coke bottle from the
green bottle in (34) and to capture the intuition that the former refers to a kind while
the latter must refer to a specific object.
(34) a) The Coke bottle has a narrow neck.
b) The green bottle has a narrow neck.
As example (34) shows, kinds are not restricted to the kinds established by biology or
other sciences. As Carlson (2009) points out, the example also shows that familiarity
is not enough for a kind to be well-established. At the time the example was created,
all Coke bottles were light green. Therefore, every experience with a Coke bottle was
also an experience with a green bottle, resulting in green bottles being more familiar
than Coke bottles.
In (34b), the green bottle cannot refer to a kind like green_bottle. However, Dayal
(2004, p. 425) demonstrates that green_bottle can be established as a new kind by
appropriate context. In (35), the introductory sentence establishes the new kind
green_bottle and allows the green bottle to refer to this newly established kind in
the second sentence.
(35) The factory produces two kinds of bottles, a green one for medicinal purposes
and a clear one for cosmetics. The green bottle has a long neck. The clear
bottle ...
Definite generics are only restricted by the availability of well-established kinds, although
example (35) shows that kinds can even be introduced in the situation. Weak
definites, on the other hand, are much more restricted. They also have to refer to
kinds but are additionally lexically restricted.
15

3 Problems with the formalization
3.1 Blockage by discourse referent
The Kind Lifting Rule is a general rule that can be applied to any verb. Since not
every definite in object position of every verb can be weak, the formalization has to
ensure that strong definites are filtered out. This is done by the usage predicate U. If
U is false, the weak reading is blocked, otherwise it is accessible.
There are some problems with this kind of filtering. One is concerned with the discourse
context. It is an advantage of the formalization that it does not establish weak
definites as discourse referents (see section 2.1). In (36a), the hospital can only act as
the antecedent for it when it has a strong reading. Also, if a referent for the definite
is already established as in (36b), the weak reading is blocked.
(36) a) Anna went to the hospital. When she arrived, she found out that it
was closed.
b) They can read a book or a newspaper. While John has picked the
book, Anna is reading the newspaper.
It is not clear how this blockage is integrated into the formalization. The Kind Lifting
Rule (KLR) is a general rule that does not take into account the discourse context.
Therefore, the blockage does not occur through a restriction on the applicability of
the KLR.
The usage predicate U filters according to the usage of the kind, where only stereotypical
usage events allow weak readings. However, in (37), a doctor serves as an
antecedent for the doctor whose weak reading is thereby blocked. Still, in the event in
which the doctor occurs, he is used in his stereotypical function, namely he is called
and asked for medical advice. This stereotypical usage makes U true which in turn
allows the weak reading. Thus, although the context allows only a strong definite,
neither the KLR nor U block the weak reading.
(37) We have a nurse and even a doctor in our small village. When she needed
medical advice, Anna called the doctor.
One solution for this over-availability is to restrict the applicability of the Kind Lifting
Rule to verbs in situations where no referent for the direct object is already established
or the object is not needed as an antecedent in the subsequent discourse.
3.2 Blockage by modification
Another reason for blockage of the weak reading is modification of the noun. While
the hospital in (38a) has a weak reading, it is blocked by the modifier new in (38b).
It is not clear how the modifier should be included in the formalization. One problem
is that the instantiation of the hospital can be introduced without a variable. Yet,
even if a variable x and a predicate like new(x) 9 can be used, U is not affected by this
modification, thus still allowing the weak reading.
The modifier can also be used to modify the kind directly as in (38b). This is reasonable
in cases where the modification leads to a new kind, for example psychiatric_hospital
9 A modifier like new brings further problems for a formalization but those are not of interest here.
16

in (38c). The result of the modification in (38b) does not seem to be a new kind. This
difference can be used to solve the problem.
(38) a) John went to the hospital.
∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),hospitalk) ∧ U(e,hospitalk)]
b) John went to the new hospital.
∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),?new_hospital) ∧
U(e,?new_hospital)]
c) John went to the psychiatric hospital.
∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),psychiatric_hospitalk) ∧
U(e,psychiatric_hospitalk)]
To formalize the solution, we define the null kind null and the modification function
Mod. The set of stereotypical usage events of null is empty and every identity check
of any object with any instantiation nulli of null is false.
Mod is a two-place function that takes as its first argument a modifier and as its
second argument a kind. Mod yields null if its second argument modified by its first
argument is not a new kind, otherwise the new kind. Since Mod always yields a kind,
it can be applied recursively when dealing with several modifiers. This change in the
formalization as in (39a) and (39b) solves the modification issue.
(39) a) John went to the new hospital.
Formalization:
∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),Mod(new,hospitalk)) ∧
U(e,Mod(new,hospitalk))]
Values of R and U:
R(Goal(e),Mod(new,hospitalk))
⇔ R(Goal(e),nullk)
⇔ false
U(e,Mod(new,hospitalk))
⇔ U(e,nullk)
⇔ false
b) John went to the psychiatric hospital.
Formalization:
∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),Mod(psychiatric,hospitalk))
∧ U(e,Mod(psychiatric,hospitalk))]
Values of R and U:
R(Goal(e),Mod(psychiatric,hospitalk))
⇔ R(Goal(e),psychiatric_hospitalk)
⇔ true or false, depending on Goal(e)
U(e,Mod(psychiatric,hospitalk))
⇔ U(e,psychiatric_hospitalk)
⇔ true or false, depending on e
17

This formalization always blocks the weak reading in (39a) because nulli is always
different from Goal(e) and U(e,Mod(new,hospitalk)) is always false but allows the
weak reading depending on e in (39b), which is the desired result.
3.3 Extension of the set of stereotypical usage events
Another problem of the formalization is the extension of λe[U(e,kindk)], in the following
called Uk, that is, the set of stereotypical usage events of kindk. This extension
is crucial for the distinction between weak and strong definites in the formalization.
Yet, it is not apparent how to determine this set.
The usage predicate U has to reflect the restrictions on nouns that can be the head of
weak definites and on phrases in which they are contained. The discourse properties of
weak definites and the restrictions on their modifiability can be ignored here because
they can be accounted for by the solutions mentioned above.
To determine Uk seems to be relatively easy for some kinds. The doctor has a weak
reading in (40a) and in (40b). Both examples show semantic enrichment. Calling
the doctor and going to the doctor entail asking for medical advice. This means that
doctor is used in its stereotypical function.
(40) a) John called the doctor.
⇒ He asked for medical advice.
b) John went to the doctor.
⇒ He asked for medical advice.
Semantic enrichment occurs in exactly those cases where the weak reading is available.
Consequently, the semantic enrichment can be used to determine Uk. For e to be an
element of Uk, it has to be an event that evokes semantic enrichment and that satisfies
this enrichment. We formalize this as a conjunction. The first conjunct is a disjunction
of predicates that in combination with the kind evoke semantic enrichment. The
second conjunct is a disjunction of stereotypical functions which we introduce here as
two-place predicates. Their first argument is the event and their second argument a
kind that should be used in its stereotypical function in the event. (41a) and (41b)
are examples for doctor and hospital.
(41) a) e ∈ λe[U(e,doctork)] ⇔ (call(e) ∨ go_to(e))
∧ ask_for_medical_advice(e,doctork)
b) e ∈ λe[U(e,hospitalk)] ⇔ go_to(e)
∧ (get_medical_help(e,hospitalk)
∨ work_as_doctor(e,hospitalk)
∨ work_as_nurse(e,hospitalk))
While λe[U(e,doctork)] and λe[U(e,hospitalk)] are relatively easy to determine, other
kinds are more problematic. As observed by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010), the
tape recorder can never have a weak reading. There are no predicates evoking semantic
enrichment and no stereotypical functions of the kind tape_recorder. Formalized, this
results in the default interpretation false and an empty set λe[U(e,tape_recorderk)]
(42a).
18

For the kind radio, which can have a weak reading as the radio in listen to the radio,
the first conjunct of the conjunction is listen_to(e) (42b). The problem is the second
conjunct.
(42) a) e ∈ λe[U(e,tape_recorderk)] ⇔ false
b) e ∈ λe[U(e,radiok)] ⇔ listen_to(e)
∧ ?
There does not seem to be any semantic enrichment for listen to the radio. If this
was true, listen_to(e) should not be a disjunct of the first disjunction because this
is limited to predicates that evoke semantic enrichment. Also, the second conjunct
would be false, λe[U(e,radiok)] would be empty and the radio would always have a
strong reading. This is not the case and it raises two questions.
The first question is why is there a weak reading of the radio in listen to the radio
and why is it limited to listen-to events. For doctor and hospital, their corresponding
verbs are special because they contribute to evoking semantic enrichment. If listen to
the radio does not evoke any semantic enrichment, there has to be another factor that
distinguishes listen-to from other verbs. This factor then also needs to be included in
the intension of Uk.
The second question is about the difference between the kind tape_recorder and the
kind radio. If both do not have stereotypical usages, why does the tape recorder never
have a weak reading?
A short answer to both questions is that the kind radio actually has stereotypical
usages but in a broader sense. In sentence (43a), it is clear what the semantic enrichment
is. Therefore, determining λe[U(e,doctork)] is easy. In sentence (43b), on the
other hand, the semantic enrichment is not so clear. One might argue that semantic
enrichment is not either present or absent but gradual and that the stereotypical function
of the kind doctor is established to a higher degree than that of the kind radio.
This might be the case but the problem with this solution is that if the concept of
stereotypical usages becomes fuzzy, it no longer works as a good filter. With a broader
understanding of stereotype, one could argue that the kind tape_recorder also has a
stereotypical function, only established to a lesser degree than that of the kind radio.
Such an approach to stereotypes would make it hard to distinguish stereotypical functions
that are established enough to allow weak readings from those that are not.
(43) a) John is calling the doctor.
⇒ He is asking for medical advice.
b) John is listening to the radio.
⇒ ?
c) John is listening to the tape recorder.
⇒ ?
3.4 Scope of the formalization
Another question regarding the formalization is its scope. It is intended to cover the
semantic enrichment subclass of weak definites but it seems to be inappropriate for
other subclasses. The class of body parts as in (44) is an example where the formalization
does not work.
19

(44) Anna gave John a shot in the arm.
∃e[give(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ Theme(e)=shot ∧ Recipient(e)=john ∧
R(Location(e),?armk) ∧ U(e,?armk)]
The realization relation R yields an instantiation of the kind that is given as its second
argument. In (44), it is not clear which kind that should be. It is not reasonable to
assume a kind such as John’s arm, consisting only of both his arms. The kind arm
is more likely to exist but is not restricted enough. The set of possible instantiations
is limited to both of John’s arms and cannot be altered under normal circumstances.
This is different from semantically enriched weak definites where, for example, the
set of possible instantiations of the kind newspaper can be altered by buying a new
newspaper in reading the newspaper events.
The kind problem also exists for the usage predicate U. If an appropriate kind were to
be found, it is not clear how the stereotypical usage of that kind would look like. No semantic
enrichment takes place in a sentence like (44) which makes the set λe[U(e,?arm)]
to appear empty. This would block the weak reading in every situation which is not
the desired result.
This example with problems both for the realization relation and the usage predicate
shows that the formalization cannot simply be applied to all weak definites.
3.5 Intermediate conclusion
A theory of weak definites has to explain two peculiarities of these nominal expressions.
The first one is the lack of a uniqueness presupposition. Unlike strong definites,
weak definites do not refer to unique, identifiable objects. Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts
(2010) successfully formalize this lack of referentiality with a realization relation that
introduces weak definites as instantiations of kinds and not as specific objects. These
kinds are also used to explain the second peculiarity.
Weak definites are often involved in evoking semantic enrichment. In most cases, VPs
containing weak definites convey more meaning than their constituents and their structure
alone carry. The explanation for this semantic enrichment by Aguilar-Guevara
& Zwarts focusses on kinds. They regard kinds as having stereotypical functions and
whether or not a kind is used in this function determines whether a definite is weak
or strong. As seen in section 3.3, this focus on kinds is problematic. Not all kinds to
which weak definites can refer seem to have stereotypical functions. Also, the question
whether it is plausible to explain semantic enrichment with stereotypical usages of
kinds must be asked. Kind-referring definites alone do not evoke semantic enrichment
but it occurs only in certain PP or VP contexts. Therefore, it might be more plausible
to focus not on kinds but to look at the PPs or VPs containing weak definites.
Bosch (2010) suggests such an approach to weak definites that sets the focus on VPs.
This approach is explained in the next section.
20

4 Weak definites and concepts
Based on the work of Carlson (2006), Bosch (2010) argues that weak definites may
not serve as arguments for verbs or prepositions but as incorporated modifiers. An
example is the weak definite the newspaper that modifies the verb read, resulting in
read the newspaper.
An incorporation approach can explain why semantic enrichment often occurs with
weak definites. The meaning conveyed by an incorporated phrase is not determined
by the meaning of its parts and its structure alone but can include additional aspects.
Since not all arguments are easily incorporated, this approach also explains why weak
definites are lexically restricted. Finally, the lack of referentiality of weak definites can
also be explained by incorporation because the definite does not exist as an isolated
constituent that has to refer to a specific entity but only contributes to the meaning
of the phrase.
According to Bosch, the weak reading and the incorporation depend on the availability
of suitable concepts. As an example, the concept of reading the newspaper is available
while the concept of reading the journal is not, resulting in a weak reading for the
newspaper in (45a) and a strong reading of the journal in (45b).
(45) a) Anna is reading the newspaper.
b) Anna is reading the journal.
Whenever a concept is available and the context does not suggest otherwise, a definite
does not refer to a specific entity but to a specific type. In (45a), this is the type
newspaper which can be used to create an abstract reading the newspaper situation.
In contrast, the type journal in (45b) cannot be used in the same way.
This approach by Bosch is similar to the approach by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts who
speak of kinds and of stereotypical usage events instead of types and abstract situations.
In Bosch’s approach, the uniqueness of the type justifies the usage of the definite
determiner just like the uniqueness of the kind does for Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts.
A conceptual approach has theoretical and formal consequences. These can only be
outlined here.
First of all, it might be more appropriate to take the availability of a concept as the
defining property of Carlson & Sussman’s weak definites and not semantic enrichment.
As seen above with listen to the radio, semantic enrichment does not occur with all
weak definites of this class or at least it is only gradual. The availability of concepts,
on the other hand, is easier to determine and semantic enrichment can be seen as being
entailed by the concept.
One open question is to what extent these concepts are compositional. They always
include the meaning of the verb and the meaning of the definite. For example, listen
to the radio necessarily refers to a listen-to event in which an instantiation of the
type radio is present. However, there are strong restrictions on which components
can combine to build up a concept. In addition, modification of the definite is only
possible when the type remains abstract.
Another open question is whether and how new concepts can be introduced. The
reading club example by Cieschinger shows that new concepts are not easily available.
21

The context of this example is a reading club where every member of the club gets
to read one book per month but no two members read the same book. This seems
to establish read the book as a new concept and the book as a new weak definite.
However, when asked which book a member reads, one can identify the book. It is
the one assigned to the reader. This shows that new concepts are not that easily
introduced. Only the modifiability of weak definites allows some flexibility but this is
limited to certain dimensions.
For the formalization this means that it must take care of three tasks. It has to check
whether a VP represents a concept, whether modification of the concept yields a new
concept that is still abstract, and whether the concept is present in the event. Not
combining the first two tasks has the benefit that not every modified concept has to
be stored explicitly. However, this only yields correct results if modification along the
abstract dimension is generally available.
This sketch of Bosch’s concept approach raises some questions but these go beyond
the scope of this thesis. In the final section of this thesis, we look at weak definites in
German to see whether an equivalent class to the semantic enrichment subclass exists
in German and whether its elements behave similarly to those in English.
22

5 Weak definites in the German language
When looking for a subclass of weak definites in German that corresponds to the semantic
enrichment subclass in English, it is most promising to look at definites that
are arguments of prepositions. Weak definites outside of prepositional phrases (PPs)
exist, but few of them belong to the semantic enrichment subclass (46a). Most are
elements of other subclasses, for example the subclass of body parts as in (46b).
(46) a) Ich fuhr mit dem Zug.
I went by the train.
(I took the train.)
b) Ich brach mir das Bein.
I broke myself the leg.
(I broke my leg.)
There are two forms of PPs that are relevant in this context. One consists of a
preposition, a definite determiner and a noun and the other of a contraction of a
preposition with the definite determiner and a noun. Not all possible contractions are
commonly used, especially in written German. They are limited to certain preposition
and determiner combinations where the gender and the case of the determiner are
relevant. Der Duden - Grammatik (2005, p. 622) lists the following contractions (47)
as the ones which are often used in writing. They all contain very frequent, short and
simple prepositions.
It is interesting to note that whenever a contracted form is easily available in written
German, it is used much more frequent than the non-contracted form. The numbers
in parentheses in the table give the ratio of non-contracted forms to contracted forms
in modern written German. 10
(47) zu dem ⇒ zum (3:97) (to the) (masculine/neuter, dative)
zu der ⇒ zur (3:97) (to the) (feminine, dative)
in dem ⇒ im (3:97) (in the) (masculine/neuter, dative)
von dem ⇒ vom (6:94) (from the) (masculine/neuter, dative)
bei dem ⇒ beim (10:90) (at the) (masculine/neuter, dative)
in das ⇒ ins (15:85) (into the) (neuter, accusative)
an dem ⇒ am (at the) (masculine/neuter, dative)
an das ⇒ ans (at the) (neuter, accusative)
auf das ⇒ aufs (on the) (neuter, accusative)
When the contracted form exists, the non-contracted form also exists. In the following
section, we look only at those PPs with prepositions that allow contraction.
5.1 Prepositional phrases headed by contracted forms
The reading of the definite in a contracted prepositional phrase (CPP) is usually weak
and the definite in the corresponding non-contracted prepositional phrase (NCPP) is
always strong. In (48a), Anna went to any supermarket to do some shopping but in
(48b) she went to one specific supermarket.
10 Numbers from Der Duden - Grammatik (2005, p. 622). No numbers are available for am, ans
and aufs.
23

(48) a) Anna ging zum Supermarkt.
Anna went to–the supermarket.
(Anna went to the supermarket.)
b) Anna ging zu dem Supermarkt.
Anna went to the supermarket.
(Anna went to the supermarket.)
Cieschinger & Bosch (2011) use example (48) to illustrate another usage of CPPs.
The normal reading of zum Supermarkt in (48a) is weak but it can also be a common
ground definite. Common ground definites are similar to strong definites in that they
presuppose a unique referent. This has to be either generally known or unique in a
local domain. For example, if Anna lives in a small village with only one supermarket,
then the set of possible referents for Supermarkt is a singleton. In this context, zum
Supermarkt in (48a) can receive the unique, common ground interpretation. Common
ground definites also exist in English. Similar to the German example, the supermarket
in to the supermarket in (48a) can receive a strong reading in situations where only
one supermarket is there.
One difference between CPPs in German and weak definites in English is that CPPs
are generally available and are not restricted by the noun. This explains how CPPs
can be so frequent in comparison to their corresponding NCPPs.
CPPs and NCPPs have different properties and different distributions. Der Duden -
Grammatik (2005, pp. 623–624) lists several obligatory usages of contractions. Contractions
are used when the noun is a nominalized verb (49a) or a nominalized adjective
(49b). They are also used before abstract (49c) and mass (49d) nouns as well as with
unique referents (49e) and proper nouns (49f). Other uses are with time and date
specifications (49g) or in idioms (49h). 11
(49) a) beim Essen stören (disturb dinner)
zum Arbeiten tragen (wear for work)
b) im Freien spielen (play outside)
ins Reine schreiben (write a fair copy)
c) im Vertrauen sagen (say under the rose)
zum Trost gereichen (take comfort in)
d) im Wasser spielen (play in the water)
ins Holz ritzen (carve in wood)
e) zum Mond fliegen (fly to the moon)
zur Sonne blicken (look at the sun)
f) beim Papst vorsprechen (call on the Pope)
ans Schwarze Meer fahren (go to the Black Sea)
g) am Montag (on Monday)
im Mai (in May)
h) Hand aufs Herz (cross my heart)
vom Regen in die Traufe (from smoke to smother)
11 Examples (bii), (c), (e), (fii) and (h) from Der Duden - Grammtik (2005). Examples (a), (di),
(fi) and (gii) analogue to examples from Der Duden - Grammtik (2005).
24

Beside these rather restricted usages, CPPs are also used in generic sentences. An
example for a generic sentence is given by Schwarz (2006) in (50a) where Schreibtisch
does not refer to one specific but rather to some desk or another. This is in contrast
to (50b), the corresponding sentence without the contraction, where dem Schreibtisch
refers to one specific desk whose identity must be known.
(50) a) Hans saß am Schreibtisch.
Hans sat on–the desk.
(Hans sat on the desk.)
b) Hans saß an dem Schreibtisch.
Hans sat on the desk.
(Hans sat on the desk.)
The differences between CPPs and NCPPs are illustrated by Schwarz (2006) and Bosch
(2010). The former shows that only NCPPs can refer to discourse anaphors (51a) and
the latter points out that only NCPPs easily establish discourse referents (51b). Furthermore,
Schwarz shows that only NCPPs can co-vary with antecedents in donkey
sentences so that in (51c) only an dem Schreibtisch refers for each individual student
and his desk to that particular desk.
(51) a) Hans hat einen neuen Schreibtisch.
Hans has a new desk.
Er sitzt den ganzen Tag {an dem, �=am} Schreibtisch. 12
He sits the whole day {at the, at–the} desk.
(Hans has a new desk. He sits the whole day at the desk.)
b) Hans ging {zu dem, ?zum} Supermarkt.
Hans went {to the, to–the} supermarket.
Er ist nur bis 22 Uhr geöffnet.
It is only till 10 pm. open.
(Hans went to the supermarket. It is only open till 10 pm.)
c) Jeder Student, der einen großen Schreibtisch hat,
Every student who a big desk has
verbringt den ganzen Tag {an dem, �=am} Schreibtisch.
spends the whole day {at the, at–the} desk.
(Every student who has a big desk spends the whole day at the desk.)
As noticed by Bosch, CPPs cannot be modified (52a). This is plausible since modification
helps to further identify a referent but CPPs do not introduce any. CPPs can also
not be contrasted (52b). For contrasting, a reference object is necessary. Since CPPs
neither pick up nor introduce discourse referents, no specific object for contrasting is
available.
12 “�=” is used to indicate that am Schreibtisch is a generic expression without reference.
25

(52) a) Hans sitzt {an dem, #am} Schreibtisch,
Hans sits {at the, at–the} desk
den ihm sein Onkel geschenkt hat.
that him his uncle given has.
(Hans sits at the desk that his uncle has given to him.)
b) Warst du schon {in dem, #im} Supermarkt?
Have been you already {to the, to–the} supermarket?
Der andere hat zu.
The other one is closed.
(Have you already been to the supermarket? The other one is closed.)
Schwarz shows that covariation is also possible for NCPPs with antecedents that either
c-command 13 (53a) or that do not c-command (53b) the PP but that it is not possible
for CPPs. In contrast, if no antecedent is given, only CPPs can be used (53c). This
also holds for unique referents which are either globally known or at least known in
the situation but not previously mentioned (53d).
(53) a) Jeder Student hat einen Schreibtisch, den er so hinstellt,
Every student has a desk that he so places
dass er gut {an dem, �=am} Schreibtisch arbeiten kann.
that he well {at the, at–the} desk work can.
(Every student has a desk that he places so that he can work well at
the desk.)
b) Die meisten Studenten haben einen großen Schreibtisch und
The most students have a big desk and
verbringen den ganzen Tag {an dem, �=am} Schreibtisch.
spend the whole day {at the, at–the} desk.
(Most students have a big desk and spend the whole day at the desk.)
c) Wenn ein Student viel zu tun hat,
When a student much to do has,
verbringt er den ganzen Tag {#an dem, am} Schreibtisch.
spends he the whole day {at the, at–the} desk.
(When a student has much to do, he spends the whole day at the desk.)
d) Hans geht heute {#zu dem, zum} Papst.
Hans goes today {to the, to–the} Pope.
(Hans visits the Pope today.)
Wir sehen uns {#in dem, im} Institut.
We see each other {in the, in–the} institute.
(See you at the institute.)
13 C-commanding is a term from Binding theory. For an introduction see Sag et al. (2003). The
examples are included to show that the difference between CPPs and NCPPs also has syntactic
consequences.
26

Two more properties of CPPs are mentioned by Schwarz. They can be accommodated
and they can be used for bridging. Im Garten in (54a) is accommodated and therefore
the usage of the definite determiner is accepted although the identity of the garden in
the discourse context is unknown. This is typical for weak definites where the definite
determiner is used despite the fact that the identity of the referent is not known.
In (54b), am Dach bridges the two sentences. The house is not mentioned again in
the second sentence but the bridging CPP links both sentences which results in the
roof belonging to the aforementioned house.
(54) a) Calling Hans’s house for the first time, his wife answers and says:
“Einen Moment, bitte, Hans ist {#in dem, im} Garten.”
“One moment, please, Hans is {in the, in–the} garden.”
(“One Moment, please, Hans is in the garden.”)
b) Das Haus ist schon alt.
The house is already old.
{#An dem, Am} Dach sind undichte Stellen.
{At the, at–the} roof are leaky spots.
(The house is already old. The roof has leaks.)
5.2 Prepositional phrases headed by non-contracted forms
In this section, we look only at those preposition and determiner combinations that
cannot contract, at least not in standard written German. Among these are in der
(in the, feminine, dative), in die (in the, feminine, accusative), auf dem (on the,
masculine/neuter, dative), and an die (on the, feminine, dative).
Weak definites contained in these PPs show restrictions similar to weak definites in
English. Most importantly, it seems that these are more lexically restricted than CPPs
and limited to object position of certain verbs. Der Zeitung in (55a) can have a weak
reading while the reading of der Zeitschrift in (55b) is always strong. Lesen (55a) can
have in der Zeitung with a weak reading of der Zeitung as its object but eingewickelt
sein (55c) can not.
(55) a) Das las ich in der Zeitung.
That read I in the newspaper.
(I read it in the newspaper.)
b) Das las ich in der Zeitschrift.
That read I in the journal.
(I read it in the journal.)
c) Der Fisch ist in der Zeitung eingewickelt.
The fish is in the newspaper wrapped.
(The fish is wrapped in newspaper.)
Like CPPs, these weak definites neither pick up (56a) nor introduce (56b) discourse
referents and are not freely modifiable without losing their weak reading (56c). Der
Zeitung only has a strong reading in all three examples.
27

(56) a) Auf dem Tisch liegen eine Zeitung und eine Zeitschrift.
On the table lie a newspaper and a journal.
Den Artikel las ich in der Zeitung.
The article read I in the newspaper.
(On the table lie a newspaper and a journal. I read the article in the
newspaper.)
b) Über den Skandal las ich in der Zeitung.
About the scandal read I in the newspaper.
Ich kaufte sie am Kiosk.
I bought it at–the kiosk.
(I read about the scandal in the newspaper. I bought it at the kiosk.)
c) Das las ich in der Zeitung,
That read I in the newspaper
die dort auf dem Tisch liegt.
that there on the table lies.
(I read it in the newspaper that lies there on the table.)
5.3 Semantic enrichment subclass in German
The semantic enrichment subclass in German consists of some CPPs, some NCPPs
and some definites outside of PPs. All of these weak definites are in argument position
of certain verbs and lexically restricted. Lexical restrictions are needed for weak
definites in NCPPs or outside of PPs because these forms do not differ from strong
definites. The difference between the weak reading for the definites in (57a) and in
(57c) and the strong reading in (57b) and in (57d) is only due to a different status of
the nouns.
(57) a) Das las ich in der Zeitung.
That read I in the newspaper.
(I read it in the newspaper.)
b) Das las ich in der Zeitschrift.
That read I in the journal.
(I read it in the journal.)
c) Ich fuhr mit dem Zug.
I went by the train.
(I went by train.)
d) Ich fuhr mit dem Cabrio.
I went by the convertible.
(I went by convertible.)
Many CPPs belong to the class of weak definites and they are generally available for
some prepositions. For example, all combinations in (58) are grammatical.
28

(58) Hans {liegt, arbeitet, schläft, ist} im {Garten, Büro, Wald, Keller}.
Hans {lies, works, sleeps, is} in–the {garden, office, forest, cellar}.
(Hans {lies, works, sleeps, is} in the {garden, office, forest, cellar}.)
The restrictions on prepositions that can contract are not semantical. The contractibility
depends on the frequency of the prepositions and their lengths (Der Duden - Grammatik,
2005). It also depends on phonology. Combinations like in dem can contract
to im but in der cannot contract to in’er.
Given these restrictions, it is not plausible to add all CPPs which are not common
ground definites to the semantic enrichment subclass. However, they belong to a superclass
that does not have semantic enrichment as a necessary property but whose
defining property is neither picking up nor introducing discourse referents. This superclass
might be the class of all weak definites.
The CPPs that belong to the semantic enrichment subclass furthermore have the property
of entailing additional meaning. Ist im Krankenhaus in (59) does not only mean
that Hans is in a building classified as a hospital but also that he is there to get medical
treatment. None of the examples in (58) shows semantic enrichment, including those
starting with Hans ist im, in contrast to (59).
(59) Hans ist im Krankenhaus.
Hans is in–the hospital.
(Hans is in the hospital.)
5.4 Conclusion
The data of this section shows that the semantic enrichment subclass also exists in
German. In fact, many definites that are weak in English are also weak in German, for
example, read the newspaper (die Zeitung lesen), go to the hospital (ins Krankenhaus
gehen and listen to the radio (im Radio hören). Interesting about German definites
is the availability of different syntactic forms for weak and strong definites in some
prepositional phrases. Normally, definites in prepositional phrases with contraction
are weak while those in the corresponding non-contracted prepositional phrases are
strong. However, as pointed out by Cieschinger & Bosch (2011), common ground definites
have the syntactic form of weak definites but they refer to uniquely identifiable
objects. This is possible because the set of potential referents is a singleton.
The main question about weak definites is how they cause semantic enrichment. Both
approaches from Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010) and from Bosch (2010) point in
promising directions but leave questions open. Further work on kinds and on concepts
might answer these questions and maybe also additional questions about language use
and understanding in general.
29

References
Aguilar-Guevara, A., & Zwarts, J. (2010). Weak definites and reference to kinds. In
N. Li, & D. Lutz (Eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 20, (pp.
179–196). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Bosch, P. (2010). Weak definites and German preposition-determiner contractions.
Workshop Specificity from theoretical and empirical points of view, Institut für Linguistik,
Universität Stuttgart.
Carlson, G. (2006). The meaningful bounds of incorporation. In S. Vogeleer, & L. Tasmowski
(Eds.) Non-Definiteness and Plurality, Linguistik Aktuell series, vol. 95, (pp.
35–50). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Carlson, G. (2009). Generics and concepts. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.) Kinds, things, and
stuff: mass terms and generics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Carlson, G., & Sussman, R. (2005). Seemingly Indefinite Definites. In S. Kepser,
& M. Reis (Eds.) Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational
perspectives, (pp. 71–86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cieschinger, M. (2011). Definite Reference. Talk at Retreat Seminar of the Research
Training Group Adaptivity in Hybrid Cognitive Systems, University of Osnabrück.
Cieschinger, M., & Bosch, P. (2011). Seemingly Weak Definites - German Preposition-
Determiner Contractions. SuB-Workshop Weak Referentiality, University of Utrecht.
Dayal, V. (2004). Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and
Philosophy, 27(4), 393–450.
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (2009). Semantics in Generative Grammar, vol. 13. Oxford:
Blackwell, 12 ed.
Krifka, M. (2003). Bare nps: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In R. B.
Young, & Y. Zhou (Eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 13, (pp.
180–203). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G., & Chierchia, G.
(1995). Genericity: An Introduction. In G. N. Carlson, & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.) The
Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70 (3), 491–538.
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Russell, B. (1905). On Denoting. Mind, 14 (56), 479–493.
Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2 ed.
Scholten, J. (2010). Weak Definites and Bare Singulars: Their Syntactic Peculiarities.
Master’s thesis, Utrecht University.
30

Schwarz, F. (2006). A morphological distinction between bound and free definites.
Workshop Presupposition Accommodation, Ohio State University.
Strawson, P. F. (1950). On Referring. Mind, 59 (235), 320–344.
Stvan, L. (2009). Semantic incorporation as an account for some bare singular count
noun uses in English. Lingua, 119 (2), 314–333.
Wermke, M., Kunkel-Razum, K., & Scholze-Stubenrecht, W. (Eds.) (2005). Der Duden
in 12 Bänden, vol. 4: Grammatik. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut & F.A.
Brockhaus AG, 7 ed.
31

Hiermit erkläre ich, Steffen Vogel, die vorliegende Arbeit Weak Definites and Generics
selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel
benutzt zu haben.
Osnabrück, September 21, 2011