Anti-uniqueness without articles
We report on the expression of singular nominals
in Burmese, an article-less language, fromoriginal elicitation work.
Singular definites and indefinites trigger
uniqueness and anti-uniqueness inferences(Hawkins 1978 a.o.):(1) The exchange student passed my class.
; contextual uniqueness(2) An exchange student passed my class.
; contextual anti-uniquenessThis anti-uniqueness in (2) is commonly thought
to be due to competition via Maximize
Presupposition (MP) between the articles {the,a} (Heim 1991; Percus 2006, Sauerland 2008 etc.).
How do article-less languages
convey (anti-)uniqueness?

DataAnalysis

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
Meghan Lim

Preview:• Bare NPs are singular definites. Singularindefinites take the numeral ‘one’ and aclassifer (cf Givón 1981).
 ‘One’ is a modifier that restricts thenominal domain to a singleton, based ona choice function f . We adjoin ∃f above tobuild a choice function indefinite out of a“definite” DP.
• The addition of ‘one’ is restricted by an
Adjunct Non-Vacuity constraint, evaluatedlocally (see Singh 2011, Erlewine and New 2019).
• Evidence from anaphoric definites with
‘one’ serves to support this view and argue
against an MP-based alternative.

Anti-uniqueness

Alternatives

Basic data

Anti-uniqueness without articles

Burmese uses numeral ‘one’ and demonstratives to express (in)definiteness distinctions:

(4)

indef
unique def
anaphoric def

N 1-clok**Dem N**ok(3) Indefinite (specific and nonspecific):
You work in a doggy day care. { Specific: There are multiple dogs
in the room with you and you are on the phone with Hlahla. You
see one of the dogs scratching on the door. Hlahla asks you whatthat noise is. / Nonspecific: There are multiple dogs outside andyou and Hlahla are in the back room. You hear a dog scratchingon the door, but don’t know which dog it is. } You tell her:Kwi *(tiq kaun)
ka tank’à ko c’iq-ne-teh.
dog one cl.animal nom door acc scratch-tam

Situationally unique definite:
You and Maunmaun are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog, who isplaying with MM. Neither of you can see them right now. You tell her:

• Singular indefinites use ‘one’ (cf Givón 1981)• Unique definites must be bare
• Anaphoric definites take dem. ehdi or are bareN*okokErlewine & Lim(*Ehdi) kwi (*tiq kaun)
ka MM ko cait-ne-teh.
dem dog one cl.animal nom MM acc like-tam‘The dog likes Maunmaun.’(5)

Anaphoric definite:
You go to an adoption drive with MM. There’s an open area for theanimals to hang out and people to mingle about. Up for adoption are afew dogs and cats. When MM causes trouble, you tell an organiser:[Maunmaun ka kwi tiq kaunnéh caun tiq
Maunmaun nom dog one cl.animal conj cat onekaunko hnauqshaq-ne-teh.]cl.animal acc bother-prog-nfut(Ehdi) kwi ka Maunmaun ko laiq-ne-teh.
dem dog nom Maunmaun acc chase-prog-nfut‘[Maunmaun was bothering a dog3 and a cat4 .] Thedog3 is chasing Maunmaun.’‘A dog is scratching the door.’
We present examples in subject position here; the facts are different in object position, where incorporation ispossible. ‘One’-indefinites as in (2) are flexible in their scope. See Lim and Erlewine 2020.Analysis

Anti-uniqueness without articles

All nominals (without determiners) take null ι:‘One’ is a modifier:(6) JιK = λsr . λP⟨e,⟨s,t⟩⟩∶ ∃!x[P(x)(sr )] . ιx[P(x)(sr )]Situation sr allows for contextual restriction.
(4’) J[[ι sr ] dog]K = ιx[x is a dog in sr ]presup: there is a unique dog in sr
Anaphoric definites take ιx :(see Schwarz 2009, Jenks 2018)(7) Jιx (ehdi)K = λy . λP⟨e,⟨s,t⟩⟩∧x = yy] . ιx[P(x)(w)∧x∧x = yy]∶ ∃!x[P(x)(w)∧x

ιx takes an index y, instead of a situation.1(5’) J[[ιx 3] dog]K = ιx[x dog in w ∧ x = g(3)] = g(3)presup: there is a unique [dog in w that is g(3)]i.e. g(3) is a dog

1
2

Erlewine & Lim ‘One’ restricts the domain to a singleton,
based on a choice function f .2qy(8)[onef cl] = λP⟨e,⟨s,t⟩⟩ . λx . λsr .
x = f cf (λy . P(y)(sr ) ∧ atomcl (y))
qy(2’)[[ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]]= ιx [x = f cf (λy . y is an atomic dog in sr )]We adjoin ∃f cf above, creating a choice functionindefinite from this “definite” DP.
(2”) LF: ∃f cf [ [[ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] s-t-d in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) s-t-d in w]; 1 iff a dog in sr is scratching the door in w

This predicts:
bare NPNP ‘one’-clexactly 1 NP in sr :✓✓!
> 1 NP in sr :# ; uniqueness✓xFollowing a suggestion by Angelika Kratzer p.c. to Schwarz(2009:rz p. 264 fn. 16) and turns out to be important. ι is Jenks’s term.

JclK = λP⟨e,⟨s,t⟩⟩ . λx . λsr . P(x)(sr ) ∧ atomcl (x)tiqf ‘one’ = λCL . λP⟨e,⟨s,t⟩⟩ . λx . λsr . x = f cf (λy . CL(P)(y)(sr ))Deriving anti-uniquenessAnti-uniqueness without articles

Anti-uniqueness by Non-Vacuity:(9) Adjunct Non-Vacuity: Adjunction of β to α
is ungrammatical if J[α β]K = JαK.
 We propose that Adjunct Non-Vacuity isevaluated at the DP level.3qy∴ * ‘one’ cl when [[ι sr ] [NP [onef cl]]] =J[[ι sr ] NP]K, regardless of the choice of f ,which occurs when NP is a singleton in sr .
; contextual anti-uniqueness

Q: What if we adjoin ‘one’ to a ιx anaphoric definite?
xw ) ∧ x = g(3)](10) J[[ι 3] NP]K = ιx [JNPK (x)(wpresup: there is a unique [NP in w that is g(3)]

(11)

qy
[[ιx 3] [NP [onef cl]]] =ιx [x = f (λy . JNPK (y)(w) ...) ∧ x = g(3)]* ‘one cl’ when (12) = (13) is guaranteed, regardlessof the choice of f , i.e. when NP is a singleton in w .
; global anti-uniqueness
3Erlewine & Lim Evidence for this approach comes fromanaphoric definites with ‘one’:(12) Anaphoric definites can take ‘one’:[‘MM was bothering a dog3 and a cat4 .’] or[‘MM was bothering the dog3 .’] (unique in sr )Ehdi kwi (tiq kaun) ka MM ko laiq-ne-teh.
dem dog one clnom MM acc chase-tam‘The/that (one) dog3 is chasing MM.’
• ‘One’ in (12) shows it has not grammaticalized
into an indefinite article (cf Givón 1981).
• The availability of ‘one’ in a context with asituationally unique NP shows that ‘one’ here
does not require contextual anti-uniqueness.
(13) But not if the NP is globally unique!
[‘The sun5 is rising.’]Aung ka ehdi ne (?#tiq lòu) ko sha-ne-teh.
Aung nom dem sun one cl acc look-tam‘Aung is looking for that (#one) sun5 .’Comment with tiq lou: Ok if there are other suns.

See Erlewine and New 2019 for an argument for cyclic (clause-level) evaluation of Non-Vacuity, incidentally also from Burmese.

Alternatives

Anti-uniqueness without articles

Q: Can we derive the anti-uniqueness inferencesfrom Maximize Presupposition? (Heim 1991;
see also Percus 2006, Sauerland 2008, Singh 2011 etc.)

Bare “NP” vs “NP one cl”:
Rouillard and Schwarz 2016 proposes that Katzir’s(2007) “deletion alternatives” are relevant
competitors for MP. Bare “NP” (14) is a deletion
alternative of “NP one cl” (15), and (16) ispresuppositionally stronger!

Erlewine & Lim

Anaphoric “ehdi NP” vs “ehdi NP one cl”:
Consider an anaphoric definite referring to 3 .
Among DPs with demonstrative ehdi, “ehdi NP”(16) is again a deletion of “ehdi NP one cl” (17).
(16) LF for “ehdi NP”:x∃fcf [ [[ι 3] [dog [onef cl]]] s-t-d in w]///////////////; 1 iff the uniq. [dog in w that’s g(3)] is s-t-d in w
presup: there is a unique [dog in w that’s g(3)]⇔ g(3) is a dog in w(17) LF for “ehdi NP one cl”:
(14) LF for bare “NP”:∃f cf [ [[ιx 3] [dog [onef cl]]] s-t-d in w]= ∃f cf [ ιx[x = f (λy . y atomic dog in w)∧
x = g(3)] s-t-d in w]
presup: there is a f cf which takes the atomic dogs
in w and returns g(3)∃fcf [ [[ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] s-t-d in w]///////////////; 1 iff the unique dog in sr is s-t-d in w
presup: there is a unique dog in sr(15) LF for “NP one cl”:=(2”)

∃f cf [ [[ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] s-t-d in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) s-t-d in w]; 1 iff a dog in sr is scratching the door in w
presup: ‘dog’ is non-empty in sr
If ‘dog’ is a singleton in sr , e.g. {}, f cf always

returns the same individual, e.g.

.

⇔ g(3) is a dog in w

A: (16) and (17) are equivalent in theirpresuppositions. The global anti-uniquenessof ‘one’ in anaphoric definites (12–13) isexplained by Maximize Presupposition!

References

Email: mitcho@nus.edu.sg, meghan.lim@u.nus.edu
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Keely Zuo-Qi New. 2019. A variably exhaustive and scalar focus particle andpragmatic focus concord in Burmese. Manuscript, National University of Singapore.
Givón, T. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica 2:35–53.
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness.
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed.
Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich. Walter de Gruyter.
Jenks, Peter. 2018. Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry 49:501–536.
Katzir, Roni. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30:669–690.
Lim, Meghan, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. 2020. Definiteness and indefiniteness in Burmese. Presented at Triple A
7.
Percus, Orin. 2006. Antipresuppositions. In Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward theestablishment of generative grammar as an empiricial science.
Rouillard, Vincent, and Bernhard Schwarz. 2016. Epistemic narrowing from Maximize Presupposition. In NELS 47.
Sauerland, Uli. 2008. Implicated presuppositions. In Sentence and Context.
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Amherst.
Singh, Raj. 2011. Maximize presupposition! and local contexts. Natural Language Semantics 19:149–168.