The Generic Article

1
The Generic Article

• Donka Farkas and Henriëtte de Swart

2
Puzzle

• Languages like English use bare plurals in
  generic contexts, e.g. Dinosaurs are extinct or
  Dogs are intelligent.
• Romance languages, Greek, Hungarian use definite
  plurals in those generic contexts.
• Why this cross-linguistic variation in languages
  that both have singulars/plural distinctions and
  definite/indefinite NPs?

3
Approach

• There is competition between definite and
  indefinite forms in generic contexts.
• Conflicting constraints may be weighed
  differently in different languages.
• An analysis in terms of Optimality Theory
  predicts both uniformity and cross-linguistic
  variation.

4
Structure of the talk

• Discussion of data.
• Background on genericity, number and the
  definiteness/indefiniteness contrast.
• OT analysis
• Predictions our analysis makes about non-standard
  cases of pseudo-genericity and anaphoric
  genericity.

5
Definites in episodic contexts

• Uniqueness for singulars
• The moon is round. English
• La lune est ronde. French
• A hold kerek. Hungarian
• Maximality for plurals
• The stars are shining. E
• Les étoiles brillent. F
• A csillagok csillognak. H

6
Familiarity I

• A mani and a childj came in. The mani was
  tall. E
• Un hommei et un enfantj sont entrés. Lhommei
  était très grand. F
• Bejött egy férfii és egy gyerekj. A férfii magas
  volt. H

7
Familiarity II

• Childreni and dogsj were playing in the street.
  The childreni were noisy. E
• Des enfantsi et des chiensj jouaient dans la rue.
  Les enfantsi faisaient du bruit. F
• Gyerekeki és kutyákj játszottak az utcán. A
  gyerekeki hangosak voltak. H

8
Genericity (sg) I

• Direct kind reference expressed by definite
  singulars.
• The dinosaur is extinct. E
• Le dinosaure a disparu. F
• A dinoszaurusz kihalt. H

9
Genericity (sg) II

• Generic generalizations typically expressed by
  indefinite singulars.
• A dog is dangerous when it is hungry. E
• Quand il a faim, un chien est dangereux. F
• Egy kutya veszélyes mikor éhes. H

10
Genericity (pl)

• English type languages indefinite (bare) plurals
  for direct kind reference and generic
  generalizations.
• Romance/Hungarian type languages definite
  plurals for direct kind reference and generic
  generalizations.

11
Direct kind reference

• Dinosaurs are extinct. E
• Les dinosaures ont disparu F
• Gli elefanti di colore bianco sono estinti.
  Italian
• Dinosaurii au disparut. Rumanian
• A dinoszauruszok kihaltak. H
• Oi asproi elephantes echoun exaphanisthei. Greek

12
Generic generalizations

• Dogs are dangerous when they are hungry. E
• Quand ils ont faim, les chiens sont
  dangereux. F
• Gli ucelli di zone paludose sono intelligenti. I
• Cînii sînt inteligenti. R
• A kutyák veszélyesek mikor éhesek. H
• Ta skillia einai eksipna. G

13
Bare plurals barred from generic contexts

• Elefanti di colore bianco sono estinti. I
• Elephants of white color are extinct. K
• Ucelli di zone paludose sono intelligenti. I
• Birds of marshlands are intelligent. GG
• Kutyák veszélyesek mikor éhesek. H
• Dogs are dangerous when hungry. GG
• Asproi elephantes echoun exaphanisthei.G
  White elephants are extinct. K

14
Issue

• Why is there uniformity across languages in
  episodic contexts and in the expression of
  genericity with singulars, and a
  definite/indefinite contrast with plurals in
  generic contexts?

15
Literature

• Vergnaud Zubizarreta (1991) definite article
  is expletive in generic contexts Krifka et al.
  (1995) theme marker.
• Longobardi (1994, 2001) definites are kind
  referring in Romance.
• But what about episodic contexts? Singular
  generics? If this a quirk of Romance, why
  Greek, Hungarian?

16
Literature II

• Dayal (2004) universal scale of definiteness ?
  gt ?. Plural kind formation ? intensional
  counterpart of ?-operation associated with
  definite determiner.
• Different cut-off points for lexicalization in
  different languages.
• But cross-linguistic semantics of the definite
  article? Cf. Robertson (2005).

17
Aim and claim

• Aim account for both uniformity and
  cross-linguistic variation in a theory on number
  and definiteness/indefiniteness.
• Claim generic environments impose conflicting
  claims on article choice for plurals languages
  resolve conflict by different rankings of
  constraints.

18
Background assumptions

• Farkas (2002) on def/indef contrast definites
  are marked, indefinites are unmarked.
• Definites impose determined reference dont
  offer choice in reference. Realized by
  uniqueness/maximality, familiarity.
• By implicature indefinites are non-unique,
  non-familiar (de Swart 2005).

19
Semantics of number

• Farkas and de Swart (2003), Farkas (2005)
  singular nouns morphologically and semantically
  unmarked for number. Atomic interpretation by
  default.
• Plural nouns mophologically marked by Pl. Pl
  introduces a presupposed discourse referent that
  bears the predicate Pl ( semantic plurality).

20
Genericity

• Genericity Carlson (1977), Farkas and Sugioka
  (1983), Gerstner and Krifka (1989), Krifka et
  al. (1995), Chierchia (1998), Dayal (2004), etc.
• Our analysis framed in DRT (but neo-Carlsonian
  framework would also work).

21
Genericity in DRT

• Genericity involves generalization over events (
  de Swart 1991, 1996).
• Individual-level predicates one-one mapping
  events and individuals, so equals unselective
  binding.
• Fereira (2004) bare habituals involve plural
  definite operator over events.
• Extend Fereira to generic sentences.

22
Generic generalizations

• Dogs are intelligent in DRT

x,s,z Dog(x) Pl(x) z ? x z in s
Gen s
Intelligent(z,s)
23
Direct kind reference

• kinds top of intensionally defined lattice
  (Ojeda 93, Chierchia 98, Dayal 04).
• Dinosaurs are extinct.

xk, y Pl(xk) xk ?s,w Dinosaur(y,w) Extinct(xk)
24
Singular generic NPs

• Atomic kinds are unique and familiar
  (well-established kinds) use definite singular
  for direct kind reference.
• The dinosaur is extinct. (K)
• A dinosaur is extinct. (K, ?taxonomic)

25
Generic generalizations

• Discourse referents bound by Gen are not
  familiar, not accomodatable (intensional).
• Pragmatic restriction Gen does not range over
  singleton sets (de Swart 1991, 1996).
• The dog is dangerous when it is hungry. (?spec,
  ?GG)
• A dog is dangerous when it is hungry. (GG)

26
Plural generics

• Claim conflicting requirements imposed on plural
  generics.
• DR is Max (because of ?/Gen), but -Fam
  (absence of familiarity and lack of accomodation
  ?/Gen intensional).
• Turn referential and dynamic aspects of
  determined reference into violable constraints.

27
Two constraints

• FMax (Faith Maximality)
• Reflect maximality features of the input in the
  output.
• Def/-Fam
• Avoid non-familiar definites.

28
Resolve conflict in OT

• Conceive of FMax and Def/-Fam as violable
  constraints.
• Order FMax gtgt Def/-Fam leads to definite
  generics (Romance, etc.)
• Order Def/-Fam gtgt FMax leads to bare generics
  (English, etc.)
• Cross-linguistic differences ranking.

29
Dogs are intelligent GG
Meaning form Def/-Fam FMax
Genx(Dgx, Intx) Max-Fam
Dogs are intelligent
The dogs are intelligent

• ?

30
The dogs.. in Hungarian
Meaning form FMax Def/-Fam
Genx(Dgx, Intx) Max-Fam
Kutyák okosak Dogs are intelligent
A kutyák okosak. The dogs are intelligent

• ?

31
Dinosaurs are extinct K
Meaning form Def/-Fam FMax
Dinxk Extxk Max-Fam
Dinosaurs are extinct
The dinosaurs are extinct

• ?

32
The dinos (Hungarian)
Meaning form FMax Def/-Fam
Dinxk Extxk Max-Fam
Dinoszauruszok eltüntek Dinosaurs are extinct
A dinoszauruszok eltüntek The dinosaurs are extinct

• ?

33
Conclusions so far..

• Genericity mixed case in terms of features
  Max, -Fam.
• Conflict between constraints FMax and Def/-Fam
  resolved in OT.
• Cross-linguistic differences in ranking lead to
  two classes of generics indefinite/bare and
  definite.

34
Two predictions

• (i) We should be able to obtain indefinite
  generics in languages like Romance, Greek,
  Rumanian, if input is -Max.
• (ii) We should be able to obtain definite
  generics in languages like English, Germanic, if
  input is Fam.
• Pseudo-genericity (i) and anaphoric genericity
  (ii).

35
Pseudo-generics

• Longobardi in Italian bare plural OK in generic
  contexts with modifier or modal.
• Ucelli di zone paludose sono ghiotti di insetti.
• Birds of marshlands are eager for insects.
• Elefanti di colore bianco possono creare grande
  curiosità
• White-coloured elephants can raise great
• curiosity.

36
French

• Des enfants malades sont grincheux. Indef_pl
  sick children are grouchy.
• Des jeunes filles doivent se montrer
• discrètes.
• Young girls have to show discreteness.

37
Hungarian

• Beteg gyerekek rosszkedvüek.
• Sick child.Pl grouchy.Pl
• Sztrákolók tönkretehetnek egy vállalatot.
• Striker.Pl ruin.Poss.Pl a company.

38
Greek

• Asproi elefantes mporoun na prokalsoun periergia.
• White elephants can raise curiosity.
• Paidia arrosta einai enochlitika.
• Kids sick are annoying.
• Arrosta paidia einai enochlitika.

39
Non-maximality in DRT

• Sick children are grouchy in DRT

x,s,z Child(x) Pl(x) z ? x Child(z) Sick(z,s)
Gen s
Grouchy(x,s)
40
Non-maximality in OT

• No one-one relation between individuals and
  events, no maximality.
• FMax not violated, for no maximality.
• Def/-Fam becomes the highest relevant
  constraint.
• No definite article in Romance, Hung.
• Indefinite generics as usual in English, etc.

41
Anaphoric genericity

• Encyclopedic contexts introduce kinds, then
  continue with anaphoric reference.
• Saurischian Bipeds The Saurischians were the
  first of the two great groups to assume
  prominence. From certain of these forms, the
  Saurischians were certainly derived.
  (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1972, p. 456).

42
Familiar generics in OT

• In English, Dutch Def/-Fam gtgt FMax.
• Anaphoric genericity Fam
• Def/-Fam not violated.
• FMax highest relevant constraint.
• Use definite article even in English, etc.
• Also use definite in Romance, etc.

43
Conclusions

• Uniform semantics for definites and indefinites
  in episodic and generic contexts across
  languages.
• Conflict between definite/indefinite forms for
  plural generics only.
• Two cases of non-standard genericity confirm
  general pattern.
• No need for a generic article!

44

• THE END