A theory of Kinds, Partitives and OF/Z Possessives (original) (raw)
Related papers
Workshop on the Semantics/Syntax of Possessive Constructions, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2002
The topic. The genitive construction in Russian is used for many different relations. Our topic is the interplay between the semantics of the genitive construction(s), the lexical semantics of the head noun, the semantics of the genitive NP, and context. Our thesis is that many restrictions on felicitous and infelicitous uses of genitive constructions, and on the possible interpretations of felicitous uses, can be characterized in terms of sortal distinctions within the domain of entities, and corresponding sortal properties of both the head noun and the genitive NP. Similar claims have been discussed before (
Generic and Weak Demonstratives: The Realm of Kinds
Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 2015
In this paper we present a unified analysis of generic and weak interpretations of definite (DEF) and demonstrative (DEM) descriptions. In such contexts, the DEF only denotes the kind, whereas the DEM cannot denote the maximal node of a taxonomy. We claim that this contrast can be explained if we transpose Wolter's (2006) semantics to the domain of kinds, a domain of taxonomies. The paper presents this proposal, which is also an argument against the direct referential treatment of demonstratives. This paper shows that, in Brazilian Portuguese (BrP), the generic and the weak uses of demonstrative phrases (DEM) contrast with generic and weak definite descriptions (DEF): in both contexts, DEF denotes the kind (never the sub-kind), and DEM denotes the sub-kind (never the kind). Our contribution is an explanation for this phenomenon. The paper focuses on the contrast between the singular DEF and the singular DEM: 'o cachorro' (the dog) versus 'esse/este cachorro' (this dog), respectively. In contemporary BrP, 'esse' and 'este' are variants that contrast with 'aquele': 'esse/este' (this) is near the speaker and 'aquele' (that) is far. 1 * We are very grateful for the feedback given by the audience at the Workshop on Referentiality in Curitiba, 2012. The final version of our paper owes to the comments of the two JoPL reviewers. The second author is also grateful to CNPq for the research grant (Process Nr. 313011/2013) 1 The translations are rough approximations. There are important differences between English and BrP demonstrative systems, but they are well beyond the aims of this paper. Bowdle & Ward (1995) make similar considerations for English demonstratives, although in a different perspective.'
This paper treats the distinction between singular nominal predication with and without indefinite article in languages like Dutch. The former variant is referred to as non-bare predication, the latter as bare predication. I make the following claims: (i) temporal analyses of the distinction between bare and non-bare predication are on the wrong track, (ii) bare predication needn't be analyzed as a lexical phenomenon, (iii) non-bare predication should be analyzed as kind-membership predication. * This paper should be read as a working paper that presents thoughts and bits of analysis that are not finished yet. I'm very grateful to audiences at ConSOLE XVI, my UiL-OTS kermit-lecture and the LSB 2008 Linguists' Day and to the reviewers of the ESSLLI student session for very useful comments and discussion. Special thanks also to Min Que, Gianluca Giorgolo, Dorota Klimek, Sander Lestrade, Joost Zwarts and Henriëtte de Swart.
Integrating Lexical and Formal Semantics: Genitives, Relational Nouns, and Type-Shifting
1998
1. Theoretical Background and Issues. In this paper we discuss the analysis of expressions such as John's team, John's brother, John's favorite movie, Mary's favorite chair, Mary's former mansion. Before introducing the concrete problems, we briefly describe our theoretical perspective. Our theoretical concern is the integration of formal semantics and lexical semantics, especially but not exclusively in the traditions of Montague Grammar and the Moscow School (Apresjan (1994), Mel'euk (1982), Paducheva (1996)), respectively. We have proposed (Borschev and Partee (in press)) to modify the Moscow school approach and represent lexical information in the form of sets of meaning postulates, which may or may not exhaust the meaning of the given lexical item. We believe this use of meaning postulates is consistent with actual Moscow school practice, and it makes it possible to integrate lexical semantics with the compositional "semantics of syntax" given ...
Reference to kinds and to other generic expressions in Spanish: definiteness and number
This paper is devoted to the study of de!nite kinds and other generic expressions, such as subkinds and definite plurals in argument position in Romance, namely Spanish. We support the claim that definite kinds denote the kind itself and are the expression of D-genericity in this type of languages. We argue that at the syntax-semantics interface definite kinds are numberless DPs composed by applying a iota operator (the meaning encoded by the definite article) to the meaning of nouns, thus constraining a generic interpretation for the sentence in which they appear. Subkinds and generic definite plurals, on the other hand, are the expression of V-driven genericity, since the generic meaning of these expressions is constrained by the type of predicate (kind and individual level predicates) they combine with. Subkinds are argued to differ from kinds in that they require Number (conceived as a realization operator). Generic definite plurals are argued to be syntactically and semantically different from both English bare plurals and de!nite kinds, and derived by applying an intensionalizing operator over the iota operator (Chierchia 1998).
On the Interpretation of Common Nouns: Types Versus Predicates
Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 2017
When type theories are used for formal semantics, different approaches to the interpretation of common nouns (CNs) become available w.r.t whether a CN is interpreted as a predicate or a type. In this paper, we shall first summarise and analyse several approaches as found in the literature and then study a particularly interesting and potentially challenging issue in a semantics where some CNs are interpreted as types-how to deal with some of the negated sentences and conditionals. When some CNs are interpreted as types (e.g., Man : Type), a sentence like John is a man can be given a judgemental interpretation j : Man, rather than the traditional Montagovian interpretation man(j). In such a setting, the question is then how to interpret negated sentences like John is not a man (or more complicated sentences like conditionals). A theory for predicational forms of judgemental interpretations is introduced and is shown to be able to deal with negated sentences and conditionals appropriately. A number of examples are considered to show that the theory provides an adequate treatment in various situations. Furthermore, experiments in the proof assistant Coq are performed in order to provide more supporting evidence for this adequacy. Besides the above, we also briefly study the use of indexed types in order to deal with CNs exhibiting temporal sensitivity and gradability.
A Dilemma about Kinds and Kind Terms [Synthese]
Synthese
'The kind Lion' denotes a kind. Yet many generics are thought to denote kinds also, like the subject-terms in 'The lion has a mane', 'Dinosaurs are extinct', and 'The potato was cultivated in Ireland by the end of the 17th century.' This view may be adequate for the linguist's overall purposes--however, if we limit our attention to the theory of reference, it seems unworkable. The problem is that what is often predicated of kinds is not what is predicated of the lion, dinosaurs, and the potato. Thus, kinds are sometimes said to be abstract objects, immanent universals, nominal essences, etc. But the lion is a predatory cat--it is not an abstract object, nor an immanent universal, nor a nominal essence. I consider several proposals about resolving the dilemma; however, the conclusion is that none of the proposals are adequate. We are thus hard pressed to make sense of allegedly kind-denoting generics, and the lesson is a "Socratic" one about the depths of our ignorance.
Journal of Logic, Language and Information
This paper proposes a unified dependent type analysis of three puzzling phenomena: inversely linked interpretations, weak definite readings in possessives and Haddocktype readings. We argue that the three problematic readings have the same underlying surface structure, and that the surface structure postulated can be interpreted properly and compositionally using dependent types. The dependent type account proposed is the first, to the best of our knowledge, to formally connect the three phenomena. A further advantage of our proposal over previous analyses is that it offers a principled solution to the puzzle of why both inversely linked interpretations and weak definite readings (in contrast to Haddock-type readings) are blocked with certain prepositions.