Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin
University of Paris
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin.
Archive | 2012
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin; Claire Beyssade
Chapter 2 offers a detailed presentation of bare NPs in both argumental and predicational positions. It is argued that the use of bare NPs in argument positions should not be viewed as being related to the use of bare NPs in predicate positions. This observation strongly suggests that the property-analysis of argumental bare plurals is misguided. We remain open to the possibility of analyzing count bare singulars in Spanish, Romanian or Catalan as property-denoting. Carlson’s (Linguistics and Philosophy 1:413–457, 1977a; Reference to kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1977c) observations regarding the differences between BPs and singular indefinites can be attributed to the fact that, due to the absence of an overt Det, BPs are necessarily weak (in the sense of Milsark (Linguistic Analysis 3:1–29, 1977)), whereas singular indefinites are both weak and strong. The main theoretical proposal of this chapter is that argumental BPs (as well as bare mass NPs) should be analyzed as generalized existential quantifiers over amounts, which are defined in such a way that they need to combine with existential predicates. Turning now to predicate positions the differences between copular sentences built with bare singulars as opposed to indefinite singulars point to a necessary distinction between two types of copular sentences (and two types of copulas), which we have labeled attributive and identity sentences. In identity sentences, the postcopular indefinite denotes an individual, just as it does in argumental positions. In attributive sentences, the postcopular noun denotes a property, which explains why indefinite singulars are disallowed and bare singulars allowed, on a par with adjectives.
Archive | 2015
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin; Ion Giurgea
In this paper we will examine Bare Plurals (henceforth BPs) and Bare Singulars (BSs) in Romance languages such as Romanian, Spanish and Catalan. The problem with (most) previous analyses was the lack of correlation between denotational type and semantic composition: BPs and BSs were assumed to be property-denoting but nevertheless subject to two different types of semantic composition, semantic incorporation (van Geenhoven 1996) and semantic pseudo-incorporation (Dayal 2003, Dobrovie-Sorin et al. 2005, 2006), respectively. Although they are defined as technically different, the two rules cannot help being basically identical, given the identity in denotational type of the nominal. And yet, we need to distinguish between the two types of bare nominals, given their clearly distinct distributions. Granting that BSs are indeed property-denoting, the main goal of the paper will be to analyze BPs—and more generally weak indefinites—as denoting existential generalized quantifiers. This analysis follows the line of Dobrovie-Sorin & Beyssade (2012), but substantially improves on it.
Archive | 2012
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin; Claire Beyssade
This chapter revisits the problems raised by donkey-sentences without resorting to an analysis in terms of scope. We show the limits of the quantificational approach on the one hand and of DRT analyses on the other hand. These accounts are problematic because they treat indefinite DPs on a par with quantified expressions. Pursuing the line of analysis developed in Chap. 6, we show that by implementing dependency relations in functional terms and by treating both indefinite DPs and pronouns occurring in donkey-sentences as functional terms, we can solve the proportion problem, we can account for the whole range of available readings of donkey-sentences (symmetric/asymmetric, weak/strong) and we can predict when and why an indefinite DP can or cannot serve as the antecedent of an anaphoric pronoun.
Archive | 2012
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin; Claire Beyssade
This chapter proposes a refinement of Milsark’s (Linguistic Analysis 3:1–29, 1977) weak vs strong distinction: in addition to the weak reading, two types of strong readings, a quantificational and a non-quantificational one, are distinguished. Distinct representations will be proposed for each of these three readings: (i) weak indefinites refer to non specific amounts and must combine with an existential predicate. According to our implementation weak indefinites are generalized existential quantifiers over amounts; (ii) non-quantificational strong indefinites are referential expressions that are represented as Skolem terms; (iii) quantificational strong indefinites are generalized quantifiers, which we have represented in terms of tripartite configurations.
Archive | 2012
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin; Claire Beyssade
In contexts where indefinite DPs co-occur with quantificational DPs, intensional predicates, negation or quantificational adverbs, they generate interpretive effects that have been traditionally analyzed in terms of scope. In this chapter, we show that so-called scope effects in fact depend on the denotation of indefinite DPs: weak indefinites take obligatory narrow scope, intermediate and wide scope being allowed only for individual-denoting indefinites. We propose to analyze scope interpretive effects in terms of dependency relations and we show that only referential indefinites (i.e. e-type indefinites) can be dependent. We represent dependent indefinites as Skolem terms, the reference of which co-varies with the quantificational DPs on which they depend. As for e-type indefinite DPs which are not dependent, they are specific and function as constants.
Archive | 2012
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin; Claire Beyssade
Chapter 7 assumes the current account of the generic reading of singular indefinites, relying on an LF representation in which a Q-adverb binds the variable supplied by the indefinite. This type of LF is argued to be illegitimate for plural and mass indefinites (due to a violation of an individuability constraint on quantification), which explains why French plural and mass indefinites (introduced by des and du/de la, respectively) cannot take generic readings (unless they occur in sentences that express generalizations over events). The generic reading of plural indefinites built with symmetric nouns is allowed because these expressions introduce variables over groups and therefore the individuability constraint on quantification is obeyed. An important conclusion of the chapter is that English bare plurals and bare mass NPs can take generic readings not because they are indefinite-like expressions but rather because they can be names of kinds.
Archive | 1993
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin
Language | 1994
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin
Semantics and Linguistic Theory | 1997
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin
Archive | 2002
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin