Bare PPs
Semantic Structures 2011-2012
Weak Referentiality Project
1 What are bare PPs?
(1)
Descriptive definition
A bare PP is an adposition with a determinerless singular count common noun.
(2)
Bare PPs
at school, by car, on TV, at hand, at eye level, per recruited student
(3)
Non-bare PPs
about wine (not count), about dogs (not singular), about midnight (not common)
(4)
Non-decidable
a priori, ex cathedra, ad nauseam; in zwang ‘in fashion’, van lieverlee ‘gradually’
(5)
A first search in the British National Corpus (http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/)
a.
about [nn1*], at [nn1*]
b.
about [aj*] [nn1*], at [aj*] [nn1*]
2 What kind of bare PPs are there?
(6)
Fixed and variable parts
a.
PN
of course
b.
PN
by car/train/carpet/telephone
c.
PN
in/to/out of jail
d.
PAN
at long last
e.
PAN
at great/considerable/tedious/epic length
(7)
PN type
a.
no variability in P or N
b.
no modification
c.
non-compositional semantics
d.
no PDN counterpart
(8)
PN examples
at large, before hand, by heart, from scratch, in fact, of course, on track, to date
(9)
PAN type with fixed/variable A
a.
like PN type, but with fixed A
b.
like PN type, but with variable A
(10) PAN examples
a.
at long last, at full tilt, in due course
b.
at [aj*] [nn1*], with [aj*] reason
1
(11) P-based type
a.
variability in noun
b.
modification of noun sometimes possible?
c.
compositional semantics
d.
sometimes PDN counterpart, sometimes not
(12) P-based examples
a.
English: by + MEANS, per + UNIT, on + MEDIUM, as + ROLE
b.
Dutch: zonder ‘without’, in + CLOTHING, op + TIME
c.
German: unter ‘under’ (in certain non-spatial contexts)
(13) More English examples
a.
on tape, on video, on film, on cd, on cassette, on celluloid, on disk, on usb stick,
on digital audio tape
b.
per year, per person, per square metre, per productive hour, per terabyte, per
recruited student that finishes the project
c.
as secretary, as witness, as general manager, as federal minister, as avatar, as sole
surviving brother of the king
d.
by train, by telephone, by road, by radio, by pogo stick, by open-topped bus
(14) Percentages of PN for Dutch prepositions (Eindhovencorpus, 720.000 words)
preposition noun
100
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
preposition
2
per
onder
zonder
tot
buiten
naar
tussen
op
in
met
na
bij
van
door
via
aan
om
voor
sinds
boven
uit
tegen
over
volgens
vanaf
achter
0
tijdens
% of P-N
70
(15) Percentages of PN for French prepositions (Frantext, 1.4M words)
preposition - noun
45
40
35
% of P-N
30
25
20
15
10
5
preposition
(16) Orthogonal distinctions
a.
bare + MWE (e.g. of course, in due course, at A range)
b.
bare + non-MWE (e.g. per, as)
c.
non-bare + MWE (e.g. on the other hand, by the way, at a loss)
d.
non-bare + non-MWE (all normal PPs …)
(17) N-based type
a.
variability in preposition
b.
no modification
c.
compositional semantics, but with enrichment
d.
contrast with PDN counterpart
(18) N-based examples
a.
at school, from school, to school
b.
in prison, out of prison, from prison
c.
in bed, to bed, out of bed
d.
to town, in town, out of town
3 What are N-based bare PPs like?
Narrow scope
(19) a.
Each mobster went to prison.
b.
Each mobster went to a prison (namely Sing Sing).
Discourse opacity
(20) a.
Pat is in prison. ?It is a 3-story concrete building.
b.
Pat is in a prison. It is a 3-story concrete building.
3
sans
en
de
hors
avec
après
par
entre
sous
contre
avant
à
sauf
chez
selon
sur
vers
envers
devant
depuis
suivant
dès
derrière
pour
dans
0
Number neutrality
(21) a.
Bob was in prison for 10 years, first in Alcatraz, then in Sing Sing.
b.
?Bob was in a prison for 10 years, first in Alcatraz, then in Sing Sing.
Limited productivity
(22) a.
*Bob is in penitentiary.
b.
Bob is in a penitentiary.
Nouns from Stvan (1998)
(23) base, bed, camp, campus, cellar, chapel, church, class, clinic, college, country, court,
daycare, deck, dock, district, hall, harbor, hill, home, hospital, island, jail, kindergarten,
kitchen, line, market, meeting, office, pasture, planet, port, prison, property, river,
school, sea, shore, site, seminary, slope, stage, state, stream, studio, synagogue, table,
temple, theater, town, university, work, world, yeshiva
Specific governors
(24) a.
*Bob is near prison. – Bob is in prison
b.
Bob is near a prison. – Bob is in a prison.
Restricted modification
(25) a.
*Bob is in crowded prison.
b.
Bob is in a crowded prison.
Stereotypical enrichment (activity implicature)
(26) a.
?Bob is in prison to do some plumbing.
b.
Bob is in a prison to do some plumbing.
Other examples of stereotypical enrichment (possessor + familiarity)
(27) a.
Three days later Mrs Holt arrived in town.
b.
Sue expected the doctor to come to school. (Jackendoff et al. 1993)
Also as object and subject
(28) a.
I left college/court/hospital/jail/port/school/town/university.
b.
Court/hospital/jail/school/university is boring.
Defectivity Hypothesis (for English)
N-based bareness is the result of a more general phenomenon of defectiveness in the
determiner system of certain nouns. (Baldwin et al. 2006, Stvan 2009, Himmelmann 1998)
4 What do N-based bare PPs have to do with weak definites?
Weak definites
are definites that do not satisfy the usual uniqueness and familiarity requirements. (Carlson &
Sussman 2005, Lucas 2011, Aguilar Guevara & Zwarts 2011)
Ellipsis test of Carlson & Sussman (2005)
(29) a.
Bob went to the store/office/pub and so did Eve.
(could be different > no uniqueness)
4
b.
Eve went to the hotel/restaurant/house and so did Bob.
(can only be the same > uniqueness)
Other properties of weak definites (cf. bare nominals)
(30) a.
Each mobster went to the pub.
b.
#Let’s go to the pub and smash it up.
c.
Bob was in the pub the whole evening, first in pub A then in pub B.
d.
#Bob is in the bar/café/restaurant.
d’. #Bob is near the pub.
e.
#Bob is in the crowded pub.
f.
#Bob is in the pub to do some plumbing.
Kind-based hypothesis for weak definites
Weak definites satisfy the usual restrictions for definite articles, because they refer to kinds
(types) and not to individuals (tokens). (Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts 2011)
Additional assumptions
- D picks out the maximal element in a denotation.
- Nouns can have a structured, taxonomic denotation N+, with a maximal kind.
- x … R(x)(k) relates an object x as a realization to a kind k.
- Certain prepositions (P+) and verbs (V+) can select a kind and introduce an existential
quantifier over the realizations of that kind.
Regular definite vs. weak definite
(31) Dad is in the pub.
a.
Regular reading:
b.
Weak reading:
IN(D(PUB))(DAD)
IN+(D(PUB+))(DAD)
 x [ R(D(PUB+))(x)  IN(x)(DAD) ]
Sloppy identity
(32) a.
Dad is in the pub and so is Mum.
IN+(D(PUB+))(DAD)  IN+ (D(PUB+))(MUM) 
x [ R(D(PUB+))(x)  IN(x)(DAD) ]  x [ R(D(PUB+))(x)  IN(x)(MUM) ]
b
Dad is in the hotel and so is Mum.
IN(D(HOTEL))(DAD)  IN(D(HOTEL))(MUM)
Generic statements
(33) Pub is a place for men, not women.
PLACE-FOR-MEN(PUB+)   PLACE-FOR-WOMEN(PUB+)
(34) a.
b.
c.
Narrow scope:  is introduced locally
x [ MOBSTER(x)  GO-TO+(D(PUB+))(x) ] 
x [ MOBSTER(x)  y [ R(D(PUB+))(y)  GO-TO(y)(x) ]
Discourse opacity:  is only inferred, not strong enough to bind
GO-TO+(D(PUB+))(w)  SMASH(?)(w)
y [ R(D(PUB+))(y)  GO-TO(y)(w)  SMASH(y)(w) ]
Number neutrality: realizations can be plural sums
IN+(D(PUB+))(BOB)  x [ R(D(PUB+))(x)  IN(x)(BOB) ]
5
d.
d’
e.
f.
Lexical restrictions: not every noun has the right taxonomic structure
IN+(D(BAR?))(BOB)
Specific governors: not every prep or verb can take a kind
NEAR?(D(PUB+))(BOB)
Restricted modification: modifiers apply to tokens, not to types
* IN+(D(CROWDED(PUB+)))(BOB)
Stereotypical enrichment: part of inference from type to token
IN+(D(PUB+))(BOB)  x [ R(D(PUB+))(x)  IN(x)(BOB)  DRINK(BOB) ]
Complementary distribution of bare and weak
(35) a.
in church – #in the church
(Church is not a place for men.)
b.
*in pub – in the pub
(The pub is not a place for women.)
c.
in hospital (Br) – in the hospital (Am)
d.
at university (Br) – at the university (Am)
Bare nominals as defective weak definites
Bare nominals (of the N-based type) are in complementary distribution with weak definites.
In other words, they are weak definites with a defective article system.
Articles and proper names
(36) a.
William, Utrecht, Holland
b.
the Rhine, the Netherlands, the Hague, the Pacific
[DP N ]
[DP the N ]
Defectiveness as an idiomatic lexical property of nouns (in English)
(37) a.
[N church ], CHURCH vs. [DP church ], D(CHURCH+)
b.
[N pub ], PUB vs. [N pub ], PUB+
c.
[N hotel ], HOTEL
5 What is the situation with N-based bare PPs in Dutch?
N-based bare PPs in Dutch (Van der Beek 2005, Paenen 2009, Van der Klis 2010)
(38) school ‘school’ op school ‘at school’, naar school ‘to school’, van, uit school ‘from
school’
huis ‘house’
thuis, in huis ‘(at) home’, naar huis ‘home’, van, uit huis ‘from home’
honk ‘honk’
op honk, bij honk ‘at home’, van honk ‘from home’
bed ‘bed’
in bed ‘in bed’, naar bed ‘to bed’, uit bed ‘out of bed’
bad ‘bath’
in bad ‘in the bathtub’, uit bad ‘out of the bathtub’
zee ‘sea’
op zee ‘at sea’, aan zee ‘by the sea’, naar zee ‘to sea’, in zee ‘into the
sea’, uit zee ‘out of the sea’
tafel ‘table’
aan tafel ‘at/to the table’, op tafel ‘on the table’, van tafel ‘from the
table’
straat ‘street’
op straat ‘on the street’, van straat ‘from the street’, over straat ‘across
the street’
kantoor ‘office’ op kantoor ‘at the office’, naar kantoor ‘to the office’, van kantoor
‘from the office’
zolder ‘attic’
op zolder ‘in the attic’, naar zolder ‘to the attic’, van zolder ‘from the
attic’
college ‘class’ op college ‘in class’, naar college ‘to class’
stal ‘stable’
op stal ‘in the shed’, van stal ‘from the shed’
6
wal ‘shore’
dek ‘deck’
boord ‘board’
dok ‘dock’
aan wal ‘ashore’, van wal ‘from the shore’
aan dek, op dek ‘on deck’, van dek ‘from the deck’
aan boord ‘aboard, on board’, van boord ‘ashore’
in dok ‘in dock’, uit dok ‘out of dock’
Complementarity of bareness and definiteness
(39) a.
English bare > Dutch definite
in prison > in de gevangenis, in church > in de kerk, to town > naar de stad, from
hospital > uit het ziekenhuis, at university > op de universiteit
b.
Dutch bare > English definite
op straat > on the street, op kantoor > in the office, op tafel > on the table
Complementarity also on subject and object position
(40) a.
Hospital was the best bit of this accident.
a’. Het ziekenhuis was het beste deel van zijn ongeluk.
b.
Anthony had just left university.
b’. Anthony had net de universiteit verlaten.
Stereotypical interpretations
(41) a.
Ada heeft Bob op kantoor ontmoet.
Ada has Bob on office met
‘Ada met Bob in the office.’
b.
De soep staat op tafel.
The soup stands on table
‘The soup is standing on the table.’
Defectivity in Dutch: Apart from school, the relevant bare nouns do not appear bare outside of
PPs. This means that the bareness of N-based PPs does not reside exclusively in the noun, but
must be a property of the whole PP.
Defectiveness as an idiomatic structural property of PPs (in Dutch)
(42) a.
[N school ], SCHOOL vs. [DP school ], D(SCHOOL+)
b.
[N pub ], PUB vs. [N pub ], PUB+
c.
[N hotel ], HOTEL
d.
[N bed ], BED vs. [PP in bed ], IN+(D(BED+))
(or maybe, [PP X bed ], X+(D(BED+)),
for every appropriate preposition [P X ], X+)
6 What does this mean for P-based bare PPs
P-based cases
(43) a.
on tape, on video, on film, on cd, on cassette, on celluloid, on disk, on usb stick,
on digital audio tape
b.
per year, per person, per square metre, per productive hour, per terabyte, per
recruited student that finishes the project
c.
as secretary, as witness, as general manager, as federal minister, as avatar, as sole
surviving brother of the king
d.
by train, by telephone, by road, by radio, by pogo stick, by open-topped bus
7
Property type Some P-based cases can be treated as selecting a semantic property, a set of
tokens (type et).
Quantificational per
(44) a.
per  ‘for every’
b.
FOR ( EVERY ( PERSON))
|--per--|
c.
per: selection of et restriction of quantifier
‘Copular’ as (Emonds 1984)
(45) a.
as  ‘being a’
b.
as: selection of predicate et
Free modification (because of token-level semantics)
(46) a.
per recruited student that finishes the project
PER(THAT-FINISHES-THE-PROJECT(RECRUITED(STUDENT)))
b.
as sole surviving brother of the king
AS(SOLE-SURVIVING(BROTHER(THE-KING)))
Kind type Some P-based cases involve reference to a kind.
Media on
(47) a.
on tape
b.
op (de) band
(Dutch)
MEDIA
+
c.
ON
( D ( TAPE ))
|---on---|
Transportation by
(48) a.
by boat
b.
met de boot
(Dutch)
c.
BYTRANSPORT ( D ( BOAT+ ))
|----by----|
Restricted modification (sub-types)
(49) a.
on digital audio tape
ONMEDIA ( D ( DIGITAL+ ( AUDIO+ ( TAPE+ ))))
b.
by open-topped bus
BYTRANSPORT ( D ( OPEN-TOPPED+ ( BOAT+ )))
A grammatical distinction
(50) N-based: bareness tied to the noun or preposition + noun combination
P-based: bareness tied to the preposition
A semantic distinction
(51) kind-based: bareness alternates with (weak) definite
property-based: bareness alternates with indefinite
8
Assignment 3.1 (10%)
The students choose different topics related to the literature (see below). This can be done in
pairs. Give a 5 minute presentation in the Thursday March 15 class or Monday March 19 class
followed by a 5 minute discussion and hand in a two-page report by email before the class of
Thursday March 22 (J.Zwarts@uu.nl).
A Starting from the passage in Baldwin et al. (on page 10) about metaphorical bare PPs,
discuss the extent to which metaphorical bare PPs could show ‘some systematicity if not
predictability’. (presentation 15/3)
B Discuss how Baldwin et al. determine the modifiability of bare PPs using corpora and
statistically methods. (presentation 15/3)
C Discuss Van der Beeks methodology to find fixed bare PPs. Do you think that it singles out
the right class or not? (presentation 15/3)
D Discuss the analysis of ‘crime names’ like moord in Van der Beek and its place in the
domain of bare PPs. (presentation 15/3)
E Discuss the semantic classification of bare PPs in Stvan on the basis of nouns. Is it wellfounded? Useful? (presentation 19/3)
F Discuss the following conclusion of Stvan: ‘The lack of article in the NP can be an indicator
that a hearer should choose a non-spatial sense for the preposition, or that the referent is
identifiable.’ (p146) How is this motivated? What could be the consequences? (presentation
19/3)
G Discuss what Kiss et al. say about introspective judgments with respect to bare PPs. What
is your own opinion about this? (presentation 19/3)
H Give a critical review of Lucas’ idea that bare and weak definite PPs date back to different
historical periods. (extra, presentation 19/3)
Assignment 3.2 (10%)
Also here a choice can be made from one of the following assignments, all based on the
British National Corpus. The assignments should be done in pairs. Report your results in the
class on Thursday March 22. The final two-page report should be handed in by email
(J.Zwarts@uu.nl) before the workshop.
A Investigate whether bare musical instrument nouns are restricted to bare PPs or have a more
general distribution.
B Investigate the modifiability of bare PPs with by + means and on + information.
C Investigate the selectivity of on. What kind of domains does it combine with?
D Can you find evidence for (or counterexamples to) the idea that bare PPs and weak definite
PPs are in complementary distribution?
9
References
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Joost Zwarts (2011). Weak definites and reference to kinds.
Proceedings of SALT 20, 179–196.
Baldwin, Timothy, John Beavers, Leonoor van der Beek, Francis Bond, Dan Flickinger and
Ivan A. Sag (2006). In search of a systematic treatment of determinerless PPs. In Patrick
Saint-Dizier ed., Computational Linguistics Dimensions of Syntax and Semantics of
Prepositions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 163-179.
Beek, Leonoor Johanneke van der (2005). Topics in Corpus-Based Dutch Syntax. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Groningen.
Carlson, Greg and Rachel Sussman (2005). Seemingly indefinite definites. In Stephan Kepsar
and Marga Reis eds., Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational
perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter, 71-86.
Emonds, Joseph (1984). The prepositional copula as. Linguistic Analysis 13, 127-144.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1998). Regularity in irregularity: article use in adpositional
phrases. Linguistic Typology 2, 315-353.
Horn, Larry R (1993). Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language.
SKY 1993: Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 33-72.
Jackendoff, Ray, Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (1993). Home is subject to Principle A.
Linguistic Inquiry 24.1, 173-177.
Kiss, Tibor (2008). Towards a Grammar of Preposition-Noun Combinations. In Stefan Müller
ed., The Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase
Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 116-130.
Klis, Martijn van der (2010). Bare PPs from a Multilingual Perspective. Master’s thesis,
Utrecht University.
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized
Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Longobardi, Giuseppe (1994). Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609-665.
Lucas, Christopher (2011). Form-function mismatches in (formally) definite English noun
phrases: Towards a diachronic account. In Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon eds., The
Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation and
Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 159-174.
Paenen, Marlies (2009). PP’s met kale nomina in het Nederlands. Bachelor’s thesis, Utrecht
University.
Pérez-Leroux, Ana T. & Thomas Roeper (1999). Scope and the structure of bare nominals:
evidence from child language. Linguistics 37, 927-960.
Stowell, Timothy A. (1991). Determiners in NP and DP. In Katherine Leffel and Denis
Bouchard eds., Views on Phrase Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
37-56.
Stvan, Laurel Smith (1998). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Bare Singular Noun Phrases.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University.
Stvan, Laurel Smith (2007). The Functional Range of Bare Singular Count Nouns in English.
In Elisabeth Stark, Elisabeth Leiss, Werner Abraham eds., Nominal Determination:
Typology, Context Constraints, and Historical Emergence. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 171-187.
Stvan, Laurel Smith (2009). Semantic Incorporation as an Account for some Bare Singular
Count Noun Uses in English. Lingua 119.2, 314-333
10