1. Incorporation Henriëtte de Swart Barcelona, May 2005

2. Combinatorics Assume: all weak NPs have a type denotation. Do weak readings of NPs in ‘normal’ contexts have a type denotation? If so, how do they combine with a verb that also takes GQs? Susan ate an apple/two apples/no apples/ every apple/neither apples/most apples

3. Two options (i) change the interpretation of the verb (lexical ambiguity, Van Geenhoven 1996, van Geenhoven & McNally 2005). (ii) change the combinatorics: different closure operations (de Swart 2001) We’ll see the same debate in incorporation constructions.

4. Bare nominals Bare plurals are special because they: (i) refer to kinds (Carlson 1977) (ii) denote properties (not GQs) (Van Geenhoven 1996) (iii) introduce a discourse referent by accomodation (Farkas & de Swart 2003).

5. Thematic arguments in DRT Farkas and de Swart (2003): enrich DRT. Distinction between thematic arguments and discourse referents. Common nouns, verbs: lexical expressions that involve thematic arguments. Determiners: introduce discourse referents by instantiating thematic arguments.

6. Instantiation I A student left. Input syntactic structure: [ S [ DP [ D a [ NP student(z)]][ VP leave(x)]] u [ S [ DP [ D u [ NP student(z)]][ VP leave(x)]] Introduction of dr by determiner

7. Instantiation II u [ S [ DP [ D u [ NP student(u)]][ VP leave(x)]] D-instantiation u [ S [ DP [ D u [ NP student(u)]][ VP leave(u)]] A-instantiation Final output: same as in ‘standard’ DRT.

8. Questions about Spanish Do bare plurals and NPs with unos both license discourse anaphora? Is there a contrast between bare plurals and unos in the possibility of the plural getting free scope (e.g. scope out of scope islands)? More in general: relation between unos NPs and bare plurals, distribution of labor?

9. Discussion III Are property denoting: bare plurals and incorporated nominals (Van Geenhoven 1996). Explains narrow scope of bare plurals: I didn’t see a spot on the floor.  or  I didn’t see spots on the floor.  not  Bare plurals and incorporated nominals are somehow ‘deficient’.

10. Incorporation Incorporation in West Greenlandic, Hindi, Hungarian, etc; direct relation between verb and object. Arnajarq eqalut-tur-p-u-q.[WG] A.abssalmon-eat-Ind-[-tr]-3sg. ‘Arnajaraq eats salmon/is a salmon-eater.’

11. Lexical ambiguity Van Geenhoven (1996): transitive verbs denote relations between individuals; incorporating verbs take a property denoting expression as their object. Transitive verb: y x [V(x,y)] Incorporating verb: P x  y [V(x,y)  P(y)] Existential closure induced by the verb!

12. Discourse anaphora I A.abs dog i -have-ind-[-tr]-3sg. Miki-mik ati-qar-p-u-q. Miki-inst name-have-ind-[-tr]-3sg. ‘Aani has a dog i. It i is called Miki.’ Aani qimmi-qar-p-u-q. VG: dynamic interpretation of .

13. Discourse anaphora II Discussion: is incorporation a morphological or a syntactic process? Sadock (1980): discourse anaphora indicate syntax. Unlike English: Mary and Bill went berry i picking. #They i were very good. Mary was baby i sitting. #It i was crying.

14. Bare and number In WG: incorporation of bare singulars only; no determiners, no plurality, no case. Plural interpretation allowed: Aani qimmi-qar-p-u-q. A.abs dog i -have-ind-[-tr]-3sg. Kusana-q-a-a-t. They i are very nice.

15. Evaluation Advantage: unified analysis of narrow scope weak NPs, bare plurals and incorporation. Disadvantage: incorporating verbs much more restricted (bare nominals only). Claim: property denotation usefuly, but not enough to account for incorporation.

16. Incorporation of plurals I In Hindi (Dayal 1999, 2005) and Hungarian (Farkas & de Swart 2003): incorporation of bare singulars and bare plurals; with case. Mari verset olvas.[hungarian] Mari poem.Acc read. Mari is reading a poem/poems. Mari verseket olvas. Mari poem.Pl.Acc read.

17. Incorporation of plurals I In Hindi (Dayal 1999, 2005) and Hungarian (Farkas & de Swart 2003): incorporation of bare singulars and bare plurals; with case; no determiners. Interpretation of bare singulars: number neutral (sg or pl, depending on context). Interpretation of bare plurals: semantically plural.

18. Incorporation of plurals II ‘Natural’ plural interpretation of bare singular: Mari bélyeget gyüjt. Mari stamp.Acc collect. ‘Mari collects stamps.’ ‘Odd’ plural interpretation of bare plural: Feri feleségeket keres. Feri wife.Pl.Acc seek. ‘Feri is looking for wives’

19. Discourse anaphora I Incorporated singulars are discourse opaque, incorporated plurals are discourse transparent. János i beteget j vizsgált a rendelöben. J. i patient j.acc examined the office.in. #Pro i Túl sulyosnal találta öt j és Pro i too severe.dat found he i.acc

20. Discourse anaphora II János i betegeket j vizsgált a rendelöben. J. i patient j.pl acc examined the office.in. Pro i Túl sulyosnal találta öket j és Pro i too severe.dat found he i.acc Similar contrast between incorporated singulars and plurals in Hindi.

21. Implicit arguments After the talk, we all went to a local bar. The vase was broken. Koenig and Mauner (2000): implicit agent. (i) A ship was sunk. (ii) A ship sank... to collect settlement money from the insurance company.

22. Discourse anaphora K&M: implicit arguments do not license discourse anaphora. (i) The vase was broken. (ii)The vase was broken by someone. (iii) He must have been very clumsy. (iii) continues (ii), not (i). Kamp and Rossdeutscher (1994): schematic dr ~ our thematic arguments.

23. Schematic dr Koenig & Mauner: schematic discourse referents in final representation: Starting point for analysis of incorporation. u Vase(u) Break(x,u)

24. Incorporation as unification Unification of thematic arguments: replace the relevant thematic argument y of a verbal predicate with the thematic argument z contributed by a nominal argument of the verb. Az orvos beteget vizsgált. The doctor patient examined.

25. Unification I Representation after interpretation of subject. Unification identifies thematic arguments z and y. u Doctor(u) [ S [ DP u][[ V’ [ NP patient(z)][ V examine(x,y)]]]]

26. Unification II Representation after unification. Final representation: uninstantiated thematic argument. u Doctor(u) [ S [ DP u][[ V’ [ NP patient(z)][ V examine(x,z)]]]]

27. Final representation u Doctor(u) Patient(z) Examine(u,z)

28. Semantic properties I Incorporated nominals take narrow scope: uninstantiated thematic arguments are scopally inert (end up being existentially closed by the embedding function).

29. Semantic properties II Claim: uninstantiated thematic arguments do not license discourse anaphora. Not in implicit argument structures. Not in incorporation.

30. Discourse anaphora Incorporated singulars are discourse opaque. János i beteget j vizsgált a rendelöben. J. i patient j.acc examined the office.in. #Pro i Túl sulyosnal találta öt j és Pro i too severe.dat found he i.acc

31. Caveat True for incorporated singulars in Hungarian and Hindi; not in West Greenlandic. Possibly: difference in pronouns (overt/covert). At least: that plays a role in Hungarian.

32. What about plurals? Dual nature: they presuppose plural discourse referent, that can be accomodated. Thus, bare plurals in regular argument position (English, Hungarian). But also: involve thematic argument at NP level before presupposition resolution. Consequence: can participate in incorporation if NP projection allowed.

33. Bare plurals in FdS II Cats were playing in the garden. K K’ u x [ S [ NPpl cats(x)][ VP play(z)]] plural(u x ) K assertion; K’ presupposition Presupposition resolution by accomodation Result: bare plurals OK in full argument position.

34. Incorporated plurals I Az orvos betegeket vizsgált. The doctor patient.pl.acc examined. We can apply unification before resolving the presupposition. [ S [ DP the doctor] u z [[ V’ [ NPpl patient(z)][ V examine(x,y)]]]] plural(u z )

35. Incorporated plurals II Az orvos betegeket vizsgált. The doctor patient.pl.acc examined. We can apply unification before resolving the presupposition. [ S [ DP the doctor] u z [[ V’ [ NPpl patient(z)][ V examine(x,z)]]]] plural(u z )

36. Incorporated plurals III We can resolve the presupposition after unification. The dr introduced by accomodation licenses discourse anaphora. v, u z Doctor(v) Plural(u z ) Patient(u z ) Examine(v,u z )

37. Discourse anaphora János i betegeket j vizsgált a rendelöben. J. i patient j.pl acc examined the office.in. Pro i Túl sulyosnal találta öket j és Pro i too severe.dat found he i.acc Similar contrast between incorporated singulars and plurals in Hindi.

38. Extensions Use semantic incorporation in non- incorporating languages for similar kinds of interpretations. E.g. bare object constructions with idiomatic readings in Romance (Espinal 2004).

39. Objects of idioms I Fer denteta[Catalan] Make tooth.dim‘show off’ Battere cassa[Italian] Beat box‘ask for money’ Conter fleurette[French] Say flower.dim‘woo (someone)’

40. Objects of idioms II Espinal (2004): bare singulars not accepted in Romance in regular, productive syntax, but frequent in idioms. Objects of idioms look like mass nouns, are interpreted as abstract objects. Assume interpretation in terms of unification of thematic arguments Lack of referential force.

41. New questions Questions about the distinction between bare singulars and bare plurals. Implications for predicative constructions and generic reference.