Article selection and anaphora in the German relative clause

Julian Grove, Emily Hanink

Abstract


German definite articles are able to contract with prepositions under certain conditions. When a noun phrase is discourse anaphoric, contraction is blocked. In the current paper we present a puzzle: restrictive relative clauses require the use of the non-contracted (strong) article form, despite their apparent lack of anaphoricity; both the determiner of the head noun and the relative pronoun (which is, in most cases, syncretic with the definite article) surface with the strong form. We provide a uniform analysis of discourse anaphoric and relative clause uses that makes use of contexts, as defined in the dynamic framework of de Groote (2006). We argue that a lexical item, which we call “anaph”, whose purpose is to make reference to an individual provided by the context, intervenes between the noun and the article in the strong form. anaph makes reference to an individual provided by the global context in cases of anaphora, and to an individual provided by an updated local context in the case of relative clauses.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4). 515–531.

Barwise, Jon & John Perry. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

de Groote, Philippe. 2006. Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In M. Gibson & J. Howell (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 1–16. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.

de Groote, Philippe & Makoto Kanazawa. 2013. A note on intensionalization. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22(2). 173–194.

Hanink, Emily. To appear. The German definite article and the ‘sameness’ of indices. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 23.1.

Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and Indefinites: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.

Kobele, Gregory M. 2015. Montagovian dynamics in three easy steps. University of Chicago.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 607–653.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, chap. 2, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar 70 Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. Facts: Particulars or information units? Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 655–670.

Partee, Barbara H. 1987. Noun-phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 115–141. Dordrecht: Foris.

Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. Amherst: University of Massachussetts PhD dissertation.

Strawson, Peter. 1950. On referring. Mind 59.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3806
 |  Add comment