Advertisement

The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 247–291 | Cite as

(The) polar bears are pink. How (the) Germans interpret (the) definite articles in plural subject DPs

  • Anna CzypionkaEmail author
  • Tanja Kupisch
Original Paper
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

According to the literature, German optionally allows a definite article with generic nominals, whereas other Germanic languages require a bare nominal (e.g., English Polar bears are white). This optionality makes German different from other Germanic languages and more similar to Romance languages, in which definite articles are obligatory with generic nominals in subject positions. Since article use with generic nominals is seen as indicative of an advanced stage of grammaticalization, the question arises whether German has moved towards a more Romance-like stage of definite article use. We present judgment and reaction time data on generic statements. We ran two experiments monitoring the preferred reading of German definites in a nonlinguistic context, i.e., pictures of items showing either prototypical characteristics (e.g., white polar bears) or nonprototypical characteristics (e.g., pink polar bears). Given this nonlinguistic context, participants judged the truth value of auditorily presented sentences with different articles (i.e., These/Ø/The polar bears are white/pink). Our results show that demonstratives are interpreted as definite and bare nominals as generic. Contrary to claims in the literature, the definite article is largely interpreted as specific, following the pattern described for other Germanic languages. However, reaction times for definite articles are significantly slower than for demonstratives and bare nominals. We interpret these findings as pointing toward an ongoing change in the semantics of definite articles.

Keywords

Genericity Definiteness Articles German Reaction times Truth value judgment task 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Luana d’Agosto and Miriam Geiss for stimulus preparation and recording, Jana Neitsch for providing her voice for the auditory stimuli, Anja Arnhold for Praat support, Oleksiy Bobrov for Presentation programming, and Luana d‘Agosto, Miriam Geiss, Sarah Zander, Christina Gozebina, and Marc Meisezahl for data acquisition, and Leo Vrana for proofreading.

References

  1. Avrutin, Sergey. 1999. Development of the syntax-discourse interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baauw, Sergio. 2000. Grammatical features and the acquisition of reference. A comparative study of Dutch and Spanish. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, Dagmar. 2016. Generische Nominalphrasen bei deutsch-französischer Zweisprachigkeit. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, Dagmar, Nadine Kolb, and Tanja Kupisch. 2015. Definite article use with generic reference in German: an empirical study. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 34 (2): 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellmann, Günter. 1990. Pronomen und Korrektur. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5 (9/10): 341–345.Google Scholar
  8. Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink.2016. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.19, retrieved 13 June 2016 from http://www.praat.org/.
  9. Brugger, G. 1993. Generic interpretations and expletive determiners. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 1–30.Google Scholar
  10. Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  11. Casalegno, Paolo. 1987. Sulla logica dei plurali. Teoria 2: 125–143.Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6 (4): 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (4): 393–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Villiers, J., and T. Roeper. 1995. Barriers, binding and the acquisition of the NP-DP distinction. Language Acquisition 4: 73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, John, and Sanford Weisberg. 2011. An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Gelman, Susan A., and Lakshmi Raman. 2003. Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development 74 (1): 308–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Universals of human language, vol 3: Word structure, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik, 47–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia, and Godehard Link. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The generic book, ed. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kupisch, Tanja, and Dagmar Barton. 2013. How bilinguals deal with variation: Generic reference in adult German bilinguals. Studia Linguistica 67: 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A Theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25 (4): 609–665.Google Scholar
  22. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. The structure of DP: Some principles, parameters, and problems. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Marc Baltin and Chris Collins, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matthewson, Lisa, Tim Bryant, and Tom Roeper. 2001. A Salish stage in the acquisition of English determiners: Unfamiliar ‘definites’. The Proceedings of SULA, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 25: 63–71.Google Scholar
  25. Nordemeyer, Ann, and Mike Frank. 2014. A pragmatic account of the processing of negative sentences. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36 (36). UC Merced. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/95j3b18w.
  26. Oosterhof, Albert. 2004. Generic noun phrases in Dutch. In Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. Fred Karlsson, 1–22. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/kielitiede/20scl/Oosterhof.pdf.
  27. Oosterhof, Albert. 2008. The semantics of generics in Dutch and related languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pérez-Leroux, Ana T., Alan Munn, Cristina Schmitt, and Michelle DeIrish. 2004. Learning definite determiners: Genericity and definiteness in English and Spanish. In 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development ProceedingsBUCLD 28 Online Proceedings Supplement, ed. Alejna Brugos, Linnea Micciulla and Christine E. Smith. http://www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2011/05/28-perez-leroux.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2015.
  29. R Development Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  30. Schafer, R. and J. de Villiers. 2000. Imagining articles: What a and the can tell us about the emergence of DP. In Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish, and Thea Keith-Lucas, 609–620. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tremblay, Antoine, and Johannes Ransijn. 2015. LmerConvenienceFunctions: Model selection and post hoc analysis for (g)lmer models. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=LMERConvenienceFunctions. R (package version 2.10).
  32. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 97–141.Google Scholar
  33. Wickham, Hadley. 2007. Reshaping data with the reshape package. Journal of Statistical Software 21 (12): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wickham, Hadley. 2011. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 40 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zamparelli, Roberto. 2002. Definite and bare kind-denoting noun phrases. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2000, ed. Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi, 305–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  2. 2.The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  3. 3.University of WroclawWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations