1. 1 Bare predication Bert Le Bruyn 1

2. 2 I am linguist.a

3. 3 Importance Widespread assumption: Articles are markers of argumenthood. Why can’t we do without in predicate position ???

4. 4 Dutch/ French/ Norwegian/ … Sometimes with indefinite article Sometimes without indefinite article → might help us to get a better understanding of why the indefinite article appears

5. 5 Organization of the talk -The facts -What an analysis should look like -Previous analyses -My analysis -Theoretical implications

6. 6 -The facts -What an analysis should look like -Previous analyses -My analysis -Theoretical implications

7. 7 Standard observations another set of nouns usually takes the indefinite article one set of nouns usually doesn’t take the indefinite article = non-capacity nouns = capacity nouns ProfessionsReligionsNationalities teacher dictator … jew christian … Belgian American … The rest ex. Hitler was dictator. H was dictator ex. White Fang is a wolf. WF is a wolf 2

8. 8 Advanced observations capacity nouns can occur with the indefinite article Marie is een dictator. M is a dictator “Mary has characteristics that we associate with dictators” non-capacity nouns can occur without the indefinite article Ik ben wolf. I am wolve “I play the part of wolve” MARKED USES 2

9. 9 CAPACITY NOUNSNON-CAPACITY NOUNS NO INDEFINITE ART INDEFINITE ART Hitler was dictator. Hitler was dictator Marie is een dictator. Marie is a dictator Ik ben wolf. I am wolve White Fang is a wolf. WF is a wolf

10. 10 -The facts -What an analysis should look like -Previous analyses -My analysis -Theoretical implications

11. 11 The ideal analysis Non-capacity nouns are lexically marked. Non-capacity nouns need the indefinite article… Capacity nouns don’t need the indefinite article… The coercions are linked to some contribution of the indefinite article. SETUP MEANING …and undergo some coercion in its absence. …and undergo some coercion in its presence. 4

12. 12 -The facts -What an analysis should look like -Previous analyses -My analysis -Theoretical implications

13. 13 Previous analyses Matushansky & Spector (2005) Non-capacity nouns have a scalarity argument slot. The scalarity argument slot has to be saturated. Syntactic marking of saturation = article. “[This] entails that the indefinite article contributes no meaning, but is only a reflex of a syntactic operation” This might account for: The existence of two types of nouns. Coercion of non-capacity nouns. This cannot account for: Coercion of capacity nouns. SET-UP IS WRONG 5

14. 14 Beyssade & Dobrovie-Sorin (2007) Two kinds of predicates. Problem: nothing inherent to the set and property view on predicates predicts the meaning differences. SEMANTICS IS UNDERDEFINED 6 sortal and non-sortal “set-like” “property-like” lexical feature that forces them to take the indefinite article

15. 15 -The facts -What an analysis should look like -Previous analyses -My analysis -Theoretical implications General idea: the indefinite article is a marker of kind-membership predication -Background on kinds -Background on articles -Why kind-membership predication has to go with the indefinite article -The analysis

16. 16 -Background on kinds -Background on articles -Why kind-membership predication has to go with the indefinite article -The analysis

17. 17 Kinds: first attempt giraffes the giraffes that come and eat here every day If at least two individuals show the same non-accidental behaviour they qualify as a kind in a given world. Non-accidental behaviour

18. 18 At least two Very intuitive idea. I made an electrogalvanic-powered diaper wetness sensor. Dodos are extinct.

19. 19 Kinds: second attempt Kinds are sets of at least two individuals showing the same behaviour in all worlds in which they exist (past, present and future). Other diaper sensors may follow. The non-accidental criterion is maintained: There have been many dodos and they might resurface. Once they exist individuals belonging to a kind must behave in the same way across worlds. The at least two criterion is maintained but the diaper sensor and dodo case are no longer problematic:

20. 20 Kinds: recap Kinds are sets of at least two individuals showing the same behaviour in all worlds (past, present and future) in which they exist. 7

21. 21 -Background on kinds -Background on articles -Why kind-membership predication has to go with the indefinite article -The analysis

22. 22 Articles Marking argumenthood In languages that have articles they are obligatory in argument position. *I have cat. *Man came to see me. Marking uniqueness In languages that distinguish between a definite and an indefinite article the definite article (in the singular) is marked for uniqueness whereas the indefinite article is unmarked. I saw the teacher. I saw a teacher. Absence of articles Only possible in predicate position. Absence of articles: unmarked for uniqueness 8

23. 23 Indefinite vs. bare both constructions are unmarked for uniqueness both pragmatically imply non-uniqueness wherever both are possible the construction with the indefinite article marks non-uniqueness (marked form linked to marked meaning) 9

24. 24 Use of articles Constraint I: Mark uniqueness. In argument position Constraint II: Use articles. In predicate position Constraint III: Don’t use articles... …unless the predication is sensitive to the uniqueness non-uniqueness distinction 10

25. 25 -Background on kinds -Background on articles -Why kind-membership predication goes with the indefinite article -The analysis

26. 26 Kinds and the indefinite article Kinds are sets of at least two elements. Bare predication is unmarked for uniqueness / non-uniqueness. Kind-membership predication is sensitive to the uniqueness / non-uniqueness contrast. bare predication indefinite article 11

27. 27 -Background on kinds -Background on articles -Why kind-membership predication has to go with the indefinite article -The analysis

28. 28 Analysis: the gist Two kinds of nouns kind non-kind + indefinite article- indefinite article White Fang is een wolf.Jan is dictator. ex. WF is a wolfJ is dictator How to check this ? 12

29. 29 -teacher -plumber -jew -catholic -American -… -wolf -dog -sock -building -lamp -… + indefinite article- indefinite article Non-accidentalAccidental Constraint on kinds! 13

30. 30 Analysis: the details Nouns with a KIND feature Nouns without a KIND feature needs checking Lexicon: KIND feature can only be checked by a –UNIQUE determiner. = indefinite singular article in predicate position 14

31. 31 If the kind feature is not checked… …when there is no –UNIQUE determiner available → restriction of the kind to contextually relevant instances …despite the availability of a – UNIQUE determiner → coercion into a non-kind noun (in argument position) (in predicate position) non-accidental → accidental 15

32. 32 Use of indefinite article in predicate position with non-kind nouns: → coercion into a kind noun accidental → non-accidental 16

33. 33 The ideal analysis Non-capacity nouns are lexically marked. Non-capacity nouns need the indefinite article… Capacity nouns don’t need the indefinite article… The coercions are linked to some contribution of the indefinite article. SETUP MEANING …and undergo some coercion in its absence. …and undergo some coercion in its presence.

34. 34 Organization of the talk -The facts -What an analysis should look like -Previous analyses -My analysis -Theoretical implications

35. 35 Theoretical implications languages that don’t allow their articles to appear in predicate position (e.g. Salish) languages that (virtually) don’t allow predicates to appear without articles (e.g. English) languages that allow for both bare and non-bare predicates (e.g. Dutch) choice depends on uniqueness considerations that are independent from marking argumenthood some syntactic accident 17

36. 36 18