1. Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts

2. Facts

3. 3 Standard test: VP ellipsis John went to the hospital and Mary too. John went to the house and Mary too.

4. 4 Facts Lexically restricted class of nouns Scarface is in the pen. vs. Scarface is in the cell. No modification possible He went to the hospital. vs. He went to the 5- story hospital. Semantic enrichment Scarface is in the pen. > he is incarcerated

5. 5 Facts Weak readings only pop up in suitable contexts Kenneth is at the store. vs. Kenneth is behind the store. Narrow scope behaviour Each man listened to the radio.

6. 6 Facts Sensitivity to number Kenneth went to the store. vs. Kenneth went to the stores. Kenneth went to the mountains. vs. Kenneth went to the mountain.

7. 7 Facts Sensitivity to syntactic position Mary went to the hospital. vs. The hospital closes at 5. The hospital is the place where people get treatment..

8. 8 Facts Limited capacity to introduce discourse referents Alice did a solo on the saxophone. ? She did not realize it was out of tune.

9. Choices

10. 10 Idioms or not > Principle of compositionality > How do you think about it? > Idioms vs. idiomatically combining expressions.

11. 11 Uniqueness or not > Carlson & Sussman > Minimal Situation Strategy (MSS) vs. Abstract Referent Strategy (ARS) > Semantic Conservativity

12. Analysis

13. 13 Implementing the ARS > What's the nature of the abstract referent? > Or be conservative and try to make do with the sort of abstract referent we already know more about? > Some new sort of abstract referent?

14. 14 Implementing the ARS > presence of the definite article > restricted modification explained Facts that follow straightforwardly > lexical restrictions Facts that follows with a bit of pushing > sensitivity to number > sensitivity to syntactic position

15. Lola took the train > Lola is not really taking the kind train but rather instantiation(s) of the kind train. > We need a realization operation.

16. 16 > Where to locate this realization operation? Two options: > build it into the verb (~Carlson) > apply it on demand to the noun (~Chierchia) > How to decide? Lola took the train

17. 17 > How to account for the difference between the two ? Intuition Lola took the train vs. Lola looked at the train Weak definite readings are only available if we interact with instantiations of the kind in a prototypical way. > Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts build this into the analysis.

18. 18 The formalization: step 1 > Comparison with more 'standard' representations of to read: 1. x y(read(y,x)) (read(j,w)) John read War and peace. 2. x y e(read(e)& Ag(e)=y&Th(e)=x)  e(read(e)&Ag(e)=j&Th(e)=w) x k y e  z(read(e)& Ag(e)=y&Th(e)=R(z,x k )&U(e,x k ) x y e(read(e)& Ag(e)=y&Th(e)=x)

19. 19 The formalization: step 1 > Comparison with more 'standard' representations of to read: 1. x y(read(y,x)) (read(j,w)) John read War and peace. 2. x y e(read(e)& Ag(e)=y&Th(e)=x)  e(read(e)&Ag(e)=j&Th(e)=w) x k y e  z(read(e)& Ag(e)=y&Th(e)=R(z,x k )&U(e,x k )) x y e(read(e)& Ag(e)=y&Th(e)=x)

20. 20 The formalization: step 2 x k y e  z(read(e)& Ag(e)=y&Th(e)=R(z,x k )&U(e,x k ))

21. 21 Facts accounted for by the formalization > Semantic enrichment > Weak readings only pop up in suitable contexts > Narrow scope behaviour > Limited capacity to introduce discourse referents

22. Questions/discussion