DOC PREVIEW
On the acquisition of maximality in free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5-6 out of 17 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 17 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 17 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 17 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 17 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 17 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 17 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 17 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Proceedings of SALT Volume 20, 1–15, 2010doi: (no doi yet)On the acquisition of maximality in free relative clauses andplural definite descriptions∗Ivano CaponigroUniversity of California, San DiegoLisa PearlUniversity of California, IrvineNeon BrooksUniversity of ChicagoDavid BarnerUniversity of California, San DiegoAbstractPlural definite descriptions (e.g. the things on the plate) and free relativeclauses (e.g. what is on the plate) have been argued to share the same semantic prop-erties, despite their syntactic differences: both are non-quantificational expressionsreferring to the maximal element of a given set (e.g. the set of things on the plate).Experimental support to this semantic analysis is provided by the first investigationever of children’s interpretation of both constructions. A Truth-Value Judgmenttask, an Act-Out task, and a corpus study of the children’s linguistic input showthat children are aware that the two constructions are different from quantificationalnominals (e.g. all the things on the plate, some of the things on the plate) very earlyon (4 years old), despite the major difference in frequency in the input. Childrenacquire the adult interpretation of both constructions at the very same time, around6-7 years old. We suggest that this relative delay depends on children’s difficultieswith the concept of the maximal element of a set or its association with specificlinguistic constructions.Keywords:free relative clauses, plural definite descriptions, maximality, acquisition, ex-perimental, Act-Out task, Truth-Value Judgment task, corpus analysis1 IntroductionIf there are six cookies in a box and nothing else, adult English speakers judge bothsentences (1) and (2) true. The very same sentences are judged false in a situation inwhich there are only marbles in the box. If the box contains three marbles and threecookies, then (1) and (2) are either false or infelicitous/awkward.(1) [The things in the box] are edible.∗We would like to thank Jennifer Audet, the audience at SALT 2010, the members of SemBabble atUCSD, and the members of LadLab at UCSD.©2010 Ivano Caponigro, Lisa Pearl, Neon Brooks, and David BarnerInformation about the license goes here, if we like.Ivano Caponigro, Lisa Pearl, Neon Brooks, and David Barner(2) [What is in the box] is edible.More generally, sentences (1) and (2) have the same felicity/truth-conditions1,even though they differ syntactically in their bracketed subject constituents. In (1),the bracketed subject is a plural definite description (PDD), i.e. a nominal expressionintroduced by the (syntactically a DP with the determiner the as its D head and an NPas its complement2). In (2), however, the bracketed subject is a free relative clause(FR), i.e. a clause introduced by a wh-word that is not interpreted as a question(syntactically a non-interrogative embedded wh-CP3).In the past forty years, the semantic properties of PDDs have been carefullydescribed and several accounts have been suggested. Though different in the details,all the accounts agree on at least two main properties of PDDs. First, a PDD isreferential rather than quantificational. In other words, a PDD semantically behavesmore like a proper name in referring to a specific object rather than quantifyingover a set of objects in the way quantified nominals like every cookie or all thecookies do4. Second, a PDD does not refer to any random object in a given set,but only to the (formally definable unique) maximal element of that set. Differentspecific proposals may vary on the nature of the maximal object a PDD refers to: a(possibly plural) maximal individual out of a set of (atomic and plural) individualsor a maximal set of individuals out of a set of sets of individuals5.The very same semantic approach has then been extended to FRs6. Thus, bothPDDs and FRs have been analyzed as referential expressions “triggering maximality”(i.e., referring to the maximal element of a given set). However, the two constructions1We are abstracting away from the case in which there is only one object in the box. In such case,sentence (1) feels awkward, since the plural definite description seem to license the inference (apresupposition? an implicature?) that there must be more than one thing in the box. On the otherhand, sentence (2) feels fully acceptable in this situation as well. The difference may be related to thefact that in English definite descriptions can be syntactically singular or plural, while free relativesare always syntactically singular, even when they are semantically plural, i.e. they refer to a pluralindividual.2More articulated internal structures have been suggested for PDDs. See Bernstein (2003) andLongobardi (2003) for an overview of DPs, their internal structures, and the supporting evidence.3 See van Riemsdijk (2005) for a thorough survey.4See Löbner (2000: 233-234, 251-253) and references therein for a discussion of the non-quantificational nature of PDDs and definite descriptions in general.5See Abbott (2010) for an accessible overview of the main facts and proposals about definiteness anddefinite descriptions in general and PDDs in particular; Schwarzschild (1996) and Landman (2000)for more technical presentations of the issues about PDDs and for specific proposals according towhich PDDs refer to maximal sets of individuals rather than maximal individuals; Link (1983) forthe fully detailed version of the specific semantic analysis of PDs we are adopting according to whichPDDs refer to maximal individuals rather than maximal sets.6See Jacobson’s (1995) seminal work and, among others, Rullmann (1995), Dayal (1996), andCaponigro (2003, 2004).2On the acquisition of maximality in free relative clauses and plural definite descriptionsdiffer in their syntax – as briefly sketched above – and therefore in their syntax-semantics mapping, as well. Maximality in PDDs is usually considered to betriggered overtly by the determiner the (e.g., Link 1983). Maximality in FRs,instead, has been argued not to be due to any overt lexical item, but to result fromthe set of type-shifting operations that have been invoked for (bare) nominals7, witha silent operator, sister of the CP of the FR, acting as the trigger of the shifting(Caponigro 2003, 2004).Left uncertain by such analyses is whether these two expressions of maximalityare attributable to a common semantic operator – overtly expressed in the firstcase, and covertly in the second – or whether the two


On the acquisition of maximality in free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions

Download On the acquisition of maximality in free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view On the acquisition of maximality in free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view On the acquisition of maximality in free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?