Specificity from Theoretical and Empirical Points of View
University of Stuttgart, August 30 – September 2
4)
*Alguna novela, Diego la
va
a escribir pronto. (RAE 2009: 2977)
Some novel, Diego CL.FEM go.PRS.3SG to write soon
5a)
*A ningún amigo, Pedro lo
invitó
a cenar.
ACC no
friend, Pedro CL.MASC invite.PST.3SG to dinner
*A pocos amigos, Pedro los
invitó
a cenar.
ACC few friends, Pedro CL.MASC.PLU invite.PST.3SG to dinner
Specificity and Topicality: some thoughts on their complex interaction
Manuel Leonetti
Universidad de Alcalá
b)
6)
A fireman is altruistic.
7a)
Faltó
un invitado.
Be-missing.PST.3SG a guest
Un invitado
faltó.
A guest
be-missing.PST.3SG
Ahí dentro
cabían
dos personas.
There inside
fit-in.PST.3PL two persons
Dos personas
cabían
ahí dentro.
Two persons
fit-in.PST.3PL there inside
1. Introduction
1)
Un libro, l’
ho letto.
A book, CL.MASC read.PRF.1SG
•
Ambiguous
– the speaker is asserting that (s)he has read a particular book that (s)he is
presumably able to identify: specific interpretation
– ‘It is true that I have read at least one book’ : non-specific interpretation
b)
8a)
b)
2. Topics force specific interpretations
2a)
A
•
Four reasons to believe that the correlation holds:
ACC a
a)
Indefinite topics in Clitic Dislocation tend to be understood as specific (but one has to pay
attention to examples like 1));
The indefinite quantifiers that are excluded from Clitic Dislocation seem to be the same
ones that cannot be specific;
Individual-Level predicates require topical subjects and this is the reason why strong
readings are the only ones allowed when their subject is an indefinite DP.
In null subject languages a postverbal indefinite subject allows for specific and nonspecific readings, while a preverbal subject tends to receive specific readings.
una secretaria que sabe
hablar inglés, Pedro la
está buscando.
secretary that know.PRS.3SG speak English, Pedro CL.FEM be.PRS.3SG
looking-for
b)
*A una secretaria que sepa
hablar inglés, Pedro la
está
buscando.
ACC a secretary that know.SUBJ.3SG speak English, Pedro CL.FEM be.PRS.3SG
looking-for.
3)
A un senador demócrata lo
van
a elegir presidente.
Rexach 2003)
ACC a senator democratic CL.MASC go.PRS.3PL to elect president
(Gutiérrez-
b)
c)
d)
3. Non-specific indefinites as topics
9a)
Un gelat,
me’ l
menjaria
amb molt de gust.(Vallduví 2002)
An ice-cream CL.1SG-CL.MASC eat.COND.1SG with much of pleasure
-
Some minor modifications in the sentences quoted in 2), 3) and 4) suffice to
license non-specific indefinites as topics
16a)
b)
balcó
Alguns amics,
és
que els
tiraries
daltabaix
del
Some friends
be.PRS.3SG that CL.MASC.PL throw.COND.2SG down-from of.the
window
10)
Un porte-manteau, vous en
avez
un là-bas
A hanger,
you CL.PART have.PRS.2PL one there
11)
#Une de mes copines, elle est
géniale
One of my friends, she be.PRS.3SG genius-like
12)
J’ai
une copine, elle est
géniale
I-have.PRS.1SG a friend,
she be.PRS.3SG genius-like
13a)
Così almeno qualcuno, lo
farò
contento
Thus at-least someone, CL.MASC make.FUT.1SG happy
Qualche cosa, la
posso
dire anche io
Some thing, CL.FEM can.PRS.1SG say
also I
Ma qualche parente ce l’
aveva,
no?
But some relative, CL CL.MASC have.PST.3SG,
not?
b)
c)
•
-
(De Cat 2007)
Un vendedor que tuviera
algo de experiencia, sí nos haría falta
A dealer that have.PST.SUBJ.3SG some of experience, yes CL.1PL beneeded.COND.3SG
b)
A un senador demócrata, seguro que lo
van
a elegir
ACC a senator democratic, sure that CL.MASC go.PRS.3PL to elect
c)
Alguna novela, el jurado la
va
a descartar
Some novel, the jury CL.FEM go.PRS.3PL to discard
4. The survival of non-specific readings
Similar facts in English (Ward and Prince 1991).
“…it has been claimed that only specific indefinites can be preposed, that only
non-specific indefinites can be preposed, and that no indefinites can be
preposed… in fact none of these conflicting claims can be maintained.”
b)
Buenos vinos, (los)
hay
en Castilla.
Spanish
Good wines, (CL.MASC.PL) have.PRS.3SG in Castille
‘There are good wines in Castille’
Libri in inglese, (li
/ne)
può
trovare al
secondo piano.
Italian
Books in English, (CL.MASC.PL/CL.PART) can.PRS.3SG find at.the second floor
If indefinite DPs can appear as topics, it has to be explained
– how they can function as adequate addresses for information update,
and
– under what conditions non-specifics can be licensed
•
The grammar of topics imposes the requirement that an appropriate entry for
information update is identified
The indefinite does not guarantee that an entry is accessible.
– The conflict is solved by pragmatically inferring an interpretation of the
indefinite DP that is able to satisfy the requirement imposed by the
topic; in other words, it is the topic that constrains the interpretation of
the DP, as is usually accepted.
•
•
14a)
I’ll have to introduce two principles. One I am going to introduce now and one I
am going to introduce later.
b)
Brains you are born with. A great body you have to work at.
15a)
•
17)
How is the non-specific reading obtained?
– The crucial condition is that 1) cannot be uttered in a neutral, out-ofthe-blue context (Muller 2000, Floricic 2006)
– Uttering 1) counts as a refusal of a previous contextual assumption like
‘You haven’t read any book’
– Such an assumption can appear explicitly or implicitly in the
communicative context
– This weak reading can be partitive or not: the speaker could refer just to
any book, or to any book from a contextually given set.
Un libro, l’ho letto… ma gli altri, purtroppo…
A book, I have read…but the others, unfortunately…
•
•
•
Two questions:
– Why should there be some kind of echoic condition on non-specific
indefinite topics?
– How can the indefinite DP still count as an aboutness topic?
Dos libros, los
han leído todos los niños
Two books, CL.MASC.PL read.PRF.3PL all the children
19)
Tres películas de Hitchcock, las
conoce
todo el mundo.(Endriss 2009)
Three films
of Hitchcock, CL.FEM.PL know.PRS.3SG everybody
20)
- ¿Cuánto cuesta uno de esos nuevos coches híbridos?
How much does a new hybrid car costs?
- 25000 dólares, seguro que te
cuesta.
(from Tomioka
2010: 129)
25000 dollars, sure that you.DAT cost.PRS.3SG
21)
22)
23)
24)
Every time some expression that can hardly count as an aboutness topic (nonspecific indefinites or quantifiers, bare nominals, predicative adjectives and
particles) occurs in a topic position, a contrastive reading has to be obtained.
EINEN schuler wurde ich nehmen,…
One student would I take
•
(Di) Libri, ne
ho letto
uno.
(of) Books, CL.PART read.PRF.1SG one
-
The ambiguity in 1) corresponds the problem of the narrow scope readings of
contrastive topics (Kiss and Gyuris 2003, Kiss 2003, Umbach 2004, Gyuris 2002,
2009, Jacobs 2001).
Contrastive topics may include some kind of subordinate Focus-structure
(Erteschik-Shir, Krifka and others)
• A FOCAL element can occur inside the topic
18)
-
25)
The two kinds of readings essentially differ with respect to the alternatives
triggered by the focus inside the topic nominal
– In the weak, or denotational readings, the focus goes on the determiner,
and the alternatives consist of quantifiers of different cardinality: in 1),
essentially ‘no books’ and ‘one book’;
– In the specific, or referential readings, the focus defines a partition of a
previously given set (a certain set of books), and the alternatives are
disjoint subsets of it: in 1), essentially ‘one of the books’ and ‘the
remaining books’.
[TOP [FOC-SUB un ] libro]
{I have read no book, I have read one book}
The number of books that I have read is (at least) one.
26)
Weak readings of indefinites can survive in topics when the two following
conditions are met
1. They are licensed by certain kinds of contrast that cannot lead to
obtaining a specific reading
• {no book/one book}
• {a book/a newspaper/a magazine}
2. They are already licensed in the sentential context with which the topic
is linked.
Ho letto
un libro.
read.PRF.1SG a book
- Some examples with non-declarative sentences:
27)
Un libro, chi è
che l’
ha letto,
quest’ estate?
One book, who be.PRS.3SG that CL.MASC read.PRF.3SG, this summer
28)
…ma almeno un libro leggetelo,
no? quest’ estate
But at-least one book read.IMP.2PL-CL.MASC, no? this summer
9a)
31)
Un gelat,
me’ l
menjaria
amb molt de gust.
An ice-cream CL.1SG-CL.MASC eat.COND.1SG with much of pleasure
[TOP [FOC-SUB un gelat ]]
32)
A man is intelligent
Erteschik-Shir (1997: 121): “…the topic of the individual-level predicate in the subordinate
f-structure (Focus-structure) is a restrictive set, i.e., a possible topic type. In the main fstructure, ’a man’ is not analyzed as the topic of the individual-level predicate, but rather
as the focus of the subordinate f-structure… the sentence is not interpretable unless the
contrastive set is available in the context, or can be inferred from it.”
33)
Una novelita
te
la
lees
en una tarde (Villalba 2000)
A short novel you.ASP CL.FEM read.PRS.2SG in one afternoon
5. Contrast licenses indefinites as topics
-
Some analogies between Clitic Dislocation and other constructions.
Hindi Leftward Scrambling (Dayal 2003)
b) Topics: Aboutness / Contrastive, Marked / Unmarked
34)
35)
36)
kitaab ANU paRh rahii hai (ravii nahiiN)
Book Anu read prog pr (Ravi not)
‘ANU is reading a book (not Ravi)’
Un libro, lo
sta
leggendo Anu, non Ravi
A book, CL.MASC be.PRS.3SG reading Anu, not Ravi
Un libro, (lo)
está
leyendo Anu, no Ravi
A book, (CL.MASC) be.PRS.3SG reading Anu, not Ravi
7b)
Un invitado faltó.
8b)
Dos personas cabían ahí dentro.
If we consider Focus structure, the examples are not ambiguous. There is a correlation
between topicality and specificity. Same with IL predicates.
a)
Creation of specific partitive readings with Spanish indefinite unos
37)
38)
#En este ayuntamiento, unos concejales son
honestos.
In this town-council, some councilors be.PRS.3PL honest
En este ayuntamiento, unos concejales son
honestos, otros no.
In this town-council,
some councilors be.PRS.3PL honest, others not
Preverbal subjects, when they compete with postverbal subjects in Null Subject
languages, impose a constraint on indefinites: if they are processed as topics,
then indefinites must get strong readings.
b) Dislocated DPs display different properties: they tend to be specific, but allow
non-specific readings to survive under certain conditions.
-
Clitic Right Dislocation in Romance: non contrastive (Villalba 2000)
39)
*Els
Them
vaig
past.1
coneixer ahir,
a {masses / pocs} alcaldes
meet yesterday to too.many / few mayors
-
Preverbal subjects are unmarked topics. Dislocated phrases and scrambled
phrases, on the contrary, are marked topics: they count as specialized
constructions whose function is topic-marking. Unmarked topics are usually non
contrastive, but marked topics tend to be contrastive (Clitic LEFT Dislocation
displays this feature).
Once the basic difference is established this way, the role of contrastivity allows
us to derive the differences between types of topic positions.
…but non-specific indefinites may appear:
40)
Vorrei
Like.COND.1SG
organizzarla
anch’io, una festa
organize-CL.FEM also I, a party
6. Concluding remarks
a) Specificity types
c) Are topics specific?
It depends on how you deal with the aboutness / contrastive distinction.
There is no need to include in the grammar an explicit condition on the referential
properties of topics, since they can be derived from information structure in any case.
d) Specificity is inferred
41)
Una ragazza, te
la presenterò.
A girl
you.DAT her present.FUT.1.SG
42)
Ti
presenterò
una ragazza.
You.DAT present.FUT.1.SG a girl
-
The appearance of partitive readings is a pervasive effect of placing indefinite DPs in topic
positions.
The grammar of natural languages does not encode a feature like [specificity] in
any position, any particular construction… except in some determiners and
quantifiers in certain languages.
Semantic and pragmatic notions like specificity, familiarity and Discourse-Linking
may be encoded in certain lexical items like articles or demonstratives, but do
not seem to play any role in the computational system (cf. Leonetti 2004).
References
Arregui, K. (2003): “Clitic-Left Dislocation is Contrastive Topicalization”. Proceedings of the 26th
Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 31-44.
Brunetti, L. (2009): “On the Semantic and Contextual Factors that Determine Topic Selection in
Italian and Spanish”. The Linguistic Review 26, 261-289.
Cohen, A. (2008): “The Information Structure of Bare Plurals in English and Italian”. In K. Schwabe &
S. Winkler (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 509-521.
Dayal, V. (2003): “Bare Nominals: Non-Specific and Contrastive Readings Under Scrambling”. In S.
Karimi (ed.): Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell, 67-90.
Delais-Roussarie, E., J. Doetjes & P. Sleeman (2004): “Dislocation”. In F. Corblin & H. de Swart (eds.):
Handbook of French Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 501-528.
De Cat, C. (2007): French Dislocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diesing, M. (1992): Indefinites. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (2000): “Le(s) thème(s) entre la syntaxe et la structure de l’ information”. In C.
Guimier (ed.): La thématisation dans les langues. Bern: Peter Lang, 169-183.
Endriss, C. (2009): Quantificational Topics. Springer.
Endriss, C. & S. Hinterwimmer (2010): "The Interpretation of Topical Indefinites as Direct and
Indirect Aboutness Topics". In C. Féry & M. Zimmermann (eds.): Information Structure.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 89-114.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997): The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Escobar, L. (1997): “Clitic Left Dislocation and other Relatives”. In E. Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.):
Materials on left Dislocation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233-273.
E. Kiss, K. (2003): “Argument Scrambling, Operator Movement, and Topic Movement in Hungarian”.
In S. Karimi (ed.): Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell, 22-43.
E. Kiss, K. & B. Gyuris (2003): “Scope Inversion under the Rise Fall Contour, or Something Else?”.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50, 371-404.
Farkas, D. (1995): “Specificity and Scope”. In L. Nash & G. Tsoulas (eds.) : Actes du Premier Colloque
Langues & Grammaire. Paris. 119-137.
Farkas, D. (2002): “Specificity Distinctions”. Journal of Semantics 19. 1-31.
Floricic, F. (2006): “La thématisation des SN indéfinis en français et en italian”. In F. Corblin et al.
(eds.): Indéfini et prédication. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 97-110.
Frascarelli, M. & R. Hinterhölzl (2008): “Types of Topics in German and Italian”. In S. Winkler & K.
Schwabe (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 87-116.
Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2003): La semántica de los indefinidos. Madrid: Visor.
Gyuris, B. (2002): The Semantics of Contrastive Topics in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, U. Budapest.
Gyuris, B. (2009): “Rethinking the Narrow Scope Reading of Contrastive Topic”. In B. Shaer et al.
(eds.): Dislocated Elements in Discourse. New York: Routledge, 284-311.
Heusinger, K. von (2002): “Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure”. Journal
of Semantics 19. 245-274.
Heusinger, K. von (2007): “Referentially Anchored Indefinites”. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger
(eds.): Existence. Semantics and Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer, 273-292.
Jacobs, J. (2001): “The Dimensions of Topic-Comment”. Linguistics 39, 641-681.
Leonetti, M. (1999): “El artículo”. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.): Gramática descriptiva de la
lengua española, vol. I. Madrid: Espasa, 787-890.
Leonetti, M. (2004): “Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish”. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics 3, 75-114.
Leonetti, M. (in press): “Indefiniteness and Specificity”. In J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea & E. O’Rourke
(eds.): Handbook of Spanish Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
López, L. (2003): “Steps for a Well Adjusted Dislocation”. Studia Linguistica 57, 193-231.
López, L. (2010): Indefinite Objects, draft, UIC.
Milsark, G. (1977): "Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the existential Construction in
English". Linguistic Analysis 3, 1-29.
Muller, C. (2000): “La thématisation des indéfinis en français: un paradoxe apparent”. In C. Guimier
(ed.): La thématisation dans les langues. Bern: Peter Lang, 185-199.
Portner, P. & K. Yabushita (2001): "Specific Indefinites and the Information Structure Theory of
Topics". Journal of Semantics 18, 271-297.
RAE (Real Academia Española) (2009): Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.
Reinhart, T. (1981): “Pragmatics and Linguistics. An Analysis of Sentence Topics”. Philosophica 27,
53-94.
Tomioka, S. (2010): “Contrastive Topics Operate on Speech Acts”. In C. Féry & M. Zimmermann
(eds.): Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115-138.
Umbach, C. (2004): “Cataphoric Indefinites”. Proceedings of the Conference ‘Sinn und Bedeutung 8’.
Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, 301-316.
Vallduví, E. (1992): The Informational Component. New York: Garland.
Vallduví, E. (2002): “L’ oració com a unitat informativa”. In J. Solà et al. (eds.): Gramàtica del català
contemporani, vol 2. Barcelona: Empùries, 1221-1279.
Villalba, X. (2000): The Syntax of Sentence Periphery, PhD dissertation, UAB.
Ward, G. & E. Prince (1991): “On the Topicalization of Indefinite NPs”. Journal of Pragmatics 16.
167-177.