Spanish unos and the article hypothesis
Going Romance 2008 | Bert Le Bruyn
1
CHALLENGE 1
2
Facts
1
Spanish unos doesn’t allow for proportional readings.
?Unos estudiantes son abogados.
unos
students
are lawyers
Intended: ‘Some students are lawyers.’
?UNOS estudiantes son abogados.
UNOS
students
are lawyers
Intended: ‘Some students are lawyers.’
1
3
I take unos...otros to be a fixed expression (see also Gutiérrez-Rexach 2001 and Martí 2007).
Questions
Why is it that unos behave in this way ?
What is it that makes unos special compared to other determiners ?
4
Previous analyses
Why is it that unos behaves in this way ?
What is it that makes unos special compared to other determiners ?
Martí 2007
Syntactic / semantic decomposition of indefinites
- number
- existential quantification
- positive polarity
- partitivity implicature
unos
algunos
Claim:
Alg- adds the partitivity implicature. Unos lacks alg- and
therefore does not give rise to partitive readings.
5
Previous analyses
Why is it that unos behaves in this way ?
What is it that makes unos special compared to other determiners ?
Martí 2007
Question that remains:
Why is unos the only determiner that needs alg- to get a
partitive reading ?
ok
Dos estudiantes son abogados.
*
Algodos estudiantes son abogados.
-> Back to where we were...
6
Previous analyses
Why is it that unos behaves in this way ?
What is it that makes unos special compared to other determiners ?
7
My analysis
Why is it that unos behaves in this way ?
What is it that makes unos special compared to other determiners ?
Unos is the default plural indefinite determiner in Spanish.
Unos is the indefinite plural article in Spanish.
-> in as far as indefinite articles are grammaticalized
markers of argumenthood they are expected not to give rise
to derived interpretations (such as the partitive one)
Parallel with the singular indefinite article:
? A student is a lawyer.
8
Argumentation
-> in as far as indefinite articles are grammaticalized
markers of argumenthood they are expected not to give
rise to derived interpretations (such as the partitive one)
Can we show that unos underwent a grammaticalization process
comparable to that of an indefinite article ?
-> what does the grammaticalization process of an indefinite article
look like ?
-> what predictions does this make for unos ?
-> are these predictions borne out ?
9
Argumentation
1. The indefinite article loses part of its semantic content
One student came to see me.
-> partitive reading possible
A student came to see me.
-> partitive reading impossible
Prediction: unos did allow for partitive readings in Early Spanish.
10
Argumentation
Prediction: unos did allow for partitive readings in Early Spanish.
Following Gutiérrez-Rexach (2001) I assume non-partitive Ds
cannot appear in the upstairs D position of (standard) partitives.
Present day Spanish:
??? He visto a unos de los familiares de Pedro.
have seen a some of the relatives of Pedro
Intended: ‘I saw some of Pedro’s relatives.’
Early Spanish:
E
ellas yendo se, fueron unos de los guardadores a la ciudat.
And they going
went unos of the guards
to the city
‘And while they were going, some of the guards went to the city.’
< manuscrito escurialense I.I.6. (between 1254 and 1270)
11
Argumentation
Two potential problems:
- only 1 example
It might be an accident...
- it’s a translation
The original text might have had some
influence...
12
Argumentation
- only 1 example
It might be an accident...
-> Are there any texts that contain more than one instance of
unos de los ?
YES
General Estoria +/- 1270
Alfonso X
Manuscrito Escurialense +/- 1260 Anonymous
Biblia Reina-Valera +/- 1570
5
8
translations!
Casiodoro de Reina 6
13
Argumentation
- it’s a translation
The original text might have had some
influence...
-> Can we safely assume that there is no real interference of
the original text ?
YES
-> Compare examples to the source text
Manuscrito Escurialense
Vulgata
Reina-Valera
Textus Receptus
(Stephanus 1550)
14
15
Reina-Valera
unos
algunos
algunos
ciertos
algunos
algunos
algunos
unos
algunos
algunos
algunos
algunos
unos
unos
algunos
algunos
algunos
unos
unos
algunos
algunos
algunos
algunos
algunos
16
thanks to Corien Bary for checking!
Matthew 28:11
Luke 13:31
Acts 23:9
Acts 24:1
Hebrews 3:16
John 9:40
Mark 12:13
Acts 21:16
Acts 19:13
Acts 15:2
John 7:25
Matthew 9:3
Matthew 12:38
Mark 2:6
Mark 7:1
Mark 11:5
Mark 15:35
Luke 6:2
Luke 9:27
Luke 19:39
Luke 20:27
Luke 20:39
Luke 24:24
Acts 10:23
Acts 19:31
Acts 23:12
Romans 11:17
Textus Receptus
ek + genitive def. pl.
tinas + genitive def. pl.
genitive def. pl.
tines + apo + def. pl.
tinas + ek + def. pl.
tines + ek + def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
tines + genitive def. pl.
Argumentation
(
Two potential problems:
)
- only 1 example
It might be an accident...
- it’s a translation
The original text might have had some
influence...
17
Argumentation
2. Important gain in frequency of the indefinite article
18
Argumentation
un N
uno N
una N
19
Corpus del Español, Mark Davies
Argumentation
Prediction: important gain in frequency for unos.
20
Argumentation
Prediction: important gain in frequency for unos.
unos N
unas N
21
Corpus del Español, Mark Davies
Argumentation
3. The indefinite article, in the beginning of its grammaticalization
process, is used to mark the introduction of salient discourse
referents (cf. Stark 2002, Blazer 1979).
Corpus study: Libro del Cavallero Cifar (+/- 1300)
-> compare singulars with and without un
# singulars with un: sample of 25
# bare singulars: sample of 25
How many are referred back to ?
pronoun, definite DP
# singulars with un: 17
# bare singulars: 0
68%
0%
22
Argumentation
Prediction: Unos, in the beginning of its grammaticalization
process, is used to mark the introduction of salient discourse
referents.
23
Argumentation
Prediction: Unos, in the beginning of its grammaticalization
process, is used to mark the introduction of salient discourse
referents.
Corpus study: Libro del Cavallero Cifar (+/- 1300)
-> compare plurals with and without unos
# plurals with unos: 28
# bare plurals: sample of 28
How many are referred back to ?
pronoun, definite DP
# plurals with unos: 18
64%
# bare plurals: 3
11%
24
Intermediate summary
Prediction: unos did allow for partitive readings in Early Spanish.
Prediction: Unos, in the beginning of its grammaticalization
process, is used to mark the introduction of salient discourse
referents.
Prediction: important gain in frequency for unos.
+
unos is parallel to the indefinite article in not allowing partitive
readings
un
unos
+
+
by 1570 unos had started losing part of its partitive potential
(algunos had become far more frequent in partitives).
 Unos functions as a plural indefinite article.
25
Intermediate summary
Spanish allows for bare plurals...
Spanish unos only allows for collective readings...
 Unos doesn’t function as a plural indefinite article.
26
CHALLENGE 2
27
Facts + previous analysis
Al
principio, Juan quería restaurar muebles,
At_the beginning
Juan
wanted
restore
pieces_of_furniture
pero terminó vendiéndolos.
but
ended_up selling_them
‘In the beginning, Juan wanted to restore pieces of furniture, but
he ended up selling them.’
Claim by Laca (1996, 1999): bare plurals do not introduce
standard discourse referents, only their descriptive content can
be picked up.
28
More facts
En la fabricación hubo
in
the production
problemas técnicos
there_were problems
technical
uno de ellos era la construcción de la torre.
one
of
them
was the construction
of
the tower
‘In the production there were technical problems, one of them
was the construction of the tower.’
How to account for the tendency of bare plurals to not be picked
up without stating that they don’t introduce discourse referents ?
29
My analysis
bare plurals introduce discourse referents that are low in
salience
-> they are not the standard way to introduce new
discourse referents
-> they are only used to introduce discourse referents
that are not likely to be picked in later discourse
If this analysis makes sense it would:
CH 2
CH 1
-> account for Laca’s intuition
-> account for the facts
-> leave for unos the role of indefinite plural article
(being the standard default det to introduce DRs)
30
My analysis
Basic intuition
Bare plurals introduce discourse referents that are not likely to be
picked up.
similar intuition about Spanish bare plurals in Laca & Tasmowski
(1994)
similar intuition about Hindi bare singulars in Dayal (1992, 1999,
2004)
-> interestingly both Laca and Dayal end up stating that no discourse
referents are being introduced
-> this does not account for the intuition
31
My analysis
Basic intuition
Bare plurals introduce discourse referents that are not likely to be
picked up.
Centering Theory
(i) Jeff helped Dick wash the car.
Forward-Looking Center
all discourse entities evoked in an
utterance
Jeff, Dick, the car
members are ranked according to
discourse salience
Jeff > Dick > the car
Preferred Center
member of FLC ranked highest
(ii) He washed the windows. He = Jeff
32
Walker, Joshi & Prince (1998)
My analysis
Basic intuition
Bare plurals introduce discourse referents that are not likely to be
picked up.
Centering Theory
Forward-Looking Center
members are ranked according to
discourse salience
How is discourse salience decided ?
Standard
Subject > Object > Other
(i) Jeff helped Dick wash the car.
(ii) He washed the windows.
Addition a certain types of NPs/DPs can be independently
marked for (a degree of) salience
33
Walker, Joshi & Prince (1998)
My analysis
Basic intuition
Bare plurals introduce discourse referents that are not likely to be
picked up.
Centering Theory
Addition a certain types of NPs/DPs can be independently
marked for (a degree of) salience
(iii) I been on this one case now about eight months [...]
indefinite-this
in 58% of the cases the referent is
referred back to explicitly
Addition b this N comes with high salience
34
My analysis
Basic intuition
Bare plurals introduce discourse referents that are not likely to be
picked up.
Centering Theory
Addition a certain types of NPs/DPs can be independently
marked for (a degree of) salience
Addition c all normal DPs come with normal salience
Addition d bare nominals come with low salience
Addition b this N comes with high salience
35
My analysis
Forward-Looking
Center (unranked)
Forward-Looking
Center (ranked)
Grammatical Function
discourse entity 1
unos
discourse entity 3
discourse entity 2
this
discourse entity 1
discourse entity 3
bare nominals
discourse entity 2
...
Information Structure
...
...
36
My analysis
vu
vu
vu
John (v)
Juan (v)
Juan (v)
plural (u)
plural (u)
apple (u)
manzana (u)
manzana (u)
bought (v,u)
compró (v,u)
compró (v,u)
John bought
this apple.
Juan compró
unas manzanas.
Juan compró
manzanas.
John bought UNOS apples
John bought apples
37
My analysis
vu
vu
vu
John (v)
Juan (v)
Juan (v)
plural (u)
plural (u)
apple (u)
manzana (u)
manzana (u)
bought (v,u)
compró (v,u)
compró (v,u)
John bought
this apple.
Juan compró
unas manzanas.
Juan compró
manzanas.
John bought UNOS apples
John bought apples
38
My analysis
vu
vu
vu
John (v)
Juan (v)
Juan (v)
plural (u)
plural (u)
apple (u)
manzana (u)
manzana (u)
bought (v,u)
compró (v,u)
compró (v,u)
John bought
this apple.
Juan compró
unas manzanas.
Juan compró
manzanas.
John bought UNOS apples
John bought apples
Does this make any solid predictions?
39
Argumentation
Does this make any solid predictions?
Problem:
There is variation in acceptability because judgements are
affected by potentially different expectations people can have
about the relevance of the entity referred to in the discourse.
(Dayal 2004)
-> Look for contexts that force or block discourse referents
from being picked up.
-> It’s in these contexts we should find clear contrasts
between the bare plural and unos N.
40
Argumentation
Does this make any solid predictions?
1. Unos will be disallowed in non-salient positions
DEF the discourse referent corresponding to a DP
occurring in a non-salient position cannot be
picked up in subsequent discourse
41
Argumentation
Does this make any solid predictions?
1. Unos will be disallowed in non-salient positions
EX
object in scope of negation
Checking prediction
A la reunión no asistieron unos profesores.
At the meeting
NEG attended
UNOS professors
NEG < unos
*NEG > unos
42
Argumentation
Does this make any solid predictions?
2. Bare plurals will be disallowed in ‘salient’ positions
DEF the discourse referent corresponding to a DP
occurring in a salient position is necessarily picked
up in subsequent discourse
43
Argumentation
Does this make any solid predictions?
2. Bare plurals will be disallowed in ‘salient’ positions
EX
Los estudiantes
compramos
un coche.
The students
bought-1pl.
a
car.
[IPLos estudiantes k [IPproi [INFLcompramos j ] [VP ti tj un coche ] ] ]
to be felicitous María has to be the antecedent of pro
to be felicitous the DR of María has to be picked up
-> the Spanish preverbal subject position is a salient position
44
Contreras (1991), Olarrea (1996), Zagona (2002)
Argumentation
Does this make any solid predictions?
2. Bare plurals will be disallowed in ‘salient’ positions
Checking prediction
* Políticos han ocupado el palacio.
Politicians
have
occupied
the palace.
45
SUMMARY
46
diachronic
Summary
Challenge 1
Why does unos behave the way it does ?
It became an article
The bare plural is not the default way to
introduce discourse referents.
Challenge 2
How to account for the tendency of bare plurals to not be picked
up without stating that they don’t introduce discourse referents ?
By appealing to the notion of discourse salience.
47
synchronic
What about the bare plural ?
The End
48
References
Literature
Blazer, E.D., 1979, The historical development of articles in Old French, PhD
dissertation, University of Texas │Contreras, H., 1991, “On the position of
subjects”, in Perspectives on Phrase Structure, ed. Rothstein, S., New York:
Academic Press │ Dayal, V., 1992, SALT II │ Dayal, V., 1992, SALT IX │ Dayal, V.,
2004, L&P │ Delfitto D. & J. Schroten, 1991, Probus 3.│ Gutiérrez-Rexach, J.,
2001, Probus 13. │ Hopper, P. & E. Traugott, 1993, Grammaticalization, CUP. │
Laca, B., 1996, ‘Acerca de la semántica de los plurales escuetos del español,
Madrid: Espasa Calpe. │ Laca & Tasmowski 1994, Lingvisticae Investigationes 18.
│ Martí, L., 2007, Natural Language Semantics [online first] │ Olarrea, A., 1996,
Pre- and Postverbal Subject Positions in Spanish, PhD dissertation, University of
Washington │ Stark, E., 2002, Journal of Semantics 19. │ Swart, H. de & J.
Zwarts, 2007, Lingua. │ Prince, E., 1981, “On the inferencing of indefinite-this
NPs”. │ Villalta, E., 1994, Plural indefinites in Spanish and distributivity
[unpublished manuscript]. │ Walker, Joshi & Prince (1998), Centering Theory in
Discourse, OUP. │ Zagona, K., 2002, The syntax of Spanish, CUP.
Corpora
http://corpus.rae.es/cordenet.html
http://www.biblegateway.com
http://www.corpusdelespanol.org
Libro del Caballero Zifar, edition by Cristina González, 1983,
Madrid, Ediciones Cátedra.
49