Definiteness and Indefinitenessin Burmese
Meghan Lim

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine

e0053320@u.nus.edu

mitcho@nus.edu.sg

Triple A 7, July 2020

Definiteness and indefiniteness in Burmese• We report on the expression of (in)definiteness for singularreferents in Burmese, a language without articles.
• All Burmese data is obtained from original elicitation with four
native Burmese speakers from Yangon, who currently reside in
Singapore.

2

Definiteness and indefiniteness in Burmese• We report on the expression of (in)definiteness for singularreferents in Burmese, a language without articles.
• All Burmese data is obtained from original elicitation with four
native Burmese speakers from Yangon, who currently reside in
Singapore.

2

Definiteness and indefiniteness in Burmese• In the basic case, bare nouns are definite and indefinites
require the numeral ‘one.’• In addition, Burmese distinguishes anaphoric vs uniquedefinites in the availability of demonstratives, similar to
Mandarin (Jenks 2018); see also Schwarz 2009, 2013.
• This picture is complicated in object position, where barenouns can be indefinite for some speakers, under certain
circumstances. We analyze this as a form of noun incorporation.

3

Definiteness and indefiniteness in Burmese• In the basic case, bare nouns are definite and indefinites
require the numeral ‘one.’• In addition, Burmese distinguishes anaphoric vs uniquedefinites in the availability of demonstratives, similar to
Mandarin (Jenks 2018); see also Schwarz 2009, 2013.
• This picture is complicated in object position, where barenouns can be indefinite for some speakers, under certain
circumstances. We analyze this as a form of noun incorporation.

3

Definiteness and indefiniteness in Burmese• In the basic case, bare nouns are definite and indefinites
require the numeral ‘one.’• In addition, Burmese distinguishes anaphoric vs uniquedefinites in the availability of demonstratives, similar to
Mandarin (Jenks 2018); see also Schwarz 2009, 2013.
• This picture is complicated in object position, where barenouns can be indefinite for some speakers, under certain
circumstances. We analyze this as a form of noun incorporation.

3

Definiteness and indefiniteness in Burmese• We develop an analysis based on the Jenks 2018 analysis of
Mandarin bare definites, with a new approach to thenumeral ‘one,’ which makes ‘one’ indefinites a kind of choicefunction indefinite.
• Support for this approach comes from the availability of ‘one’in anaphoric definites.

4Definiteness and indefiniteness in Burmese• We develop an analysis based on the Jenks 2018 analysis of
Mandarin bare definites, with a new approach to thenumeral ‘one,’ which makes ‘one’ indefinites a kind of choicefunction indefinite.
• Support for this approach comes from the availability of ‘one’in anaphoric definites.

4Roadmap§1 Background on Burmese§2 The expression of (in)definiteness§3 Indefinites in object position§4 Analysis§5 More on ‘one’5§1 Background on Burmese

6Word order and case marking
Burmese is a head-final language with default SOV word order andnominative-accusative case alignment:(1) Canonical SOV order:
thanmata %(ka) Maunmaun (ko) p’eiq-k’éh-teh.
President nom Maunmaun acc invite-pst-nfut‘The president invited Maunmaun.’• Nominative case marker ka• Accusative case marker ko• Case markers (especially accusative ko) may be dropped
7

Word order and case marking(2) OSV order via scrambling:
Maunmaun *(ko) thanmata (ka)Maunmaun acc president nom

p’eiq-k’éh-teh.
invite-pst-nfut‘The president invited Maunmaun.’• Scrambling affects the ability to case-drop.
See also Jenny and Hnin Tun 2013 on case-marking in Burmese.

8Nominals(3) Burmese nominal schema, based on Simpson 2005:(Dem) (RC) N (Adj) (Num CL)
See also Soe 1999 ch. 3 for more detailed discussion.

There are also postnominal plural markers:(4)

Mui-dwe ka Maunmaun ko kaiq-k’éh-teh.
snake-pl nom Maunmaun acc bite-past-nfut‘The snakes bit Maunmaun.’# if 1 snake

But today we’ll concentrate on singular referents.
9Nominals(3) Burmese nominal schema, based on Simpson 2005:(Dem) (RC) N (Adj) (Num CL)
See also Soe 1999 ch. 3 for more detailed discussion.

There are also postnominal plural markers:(4) Mui-dwe ka Maunmaun ko kaiq-k’éh-teh.
snake-pl nom Maunmaun acc bite-past-nfut‘The snakes bit Maunmaun.’# if 1 snake

But today we’ll concentrate on singular referents.
9§2 The expression of(in)definiteness10

Definiteness across languages
Dryer (2013; WALS) highlights four crosslinguistically common
strategies for expressing (in)definiteness:
1. an indefinite word distinct from the numeral ‘one’
2. the numeral ‘one’ to mark indefiniteness3. an indefinite affix to mark indefiniteness4. a definite article
Languages employ different strategies and make different cuts. For
example, English only distinguishes between definites andindefinites, using the articles the and a.
11

Definiteness across languages
Dryer (2013; WALS) highlights four crosslinguistically common
strategies for expressing (in)definiteness:
1. an indefinite word distinct from the numeral ‘one’
2. the numeral ‘one’ to mark indefiniteness3. an indefinite affix to mark indefiniteness4. a definite article
Languages employ different strategies and make different cuts. For
example, English only distinguishes between definites andindefinites, using the articles the and a.
11

Types of indefinites(5) Nonspecific indefinite:
A dog is scratching the door, but I don’t know which dog.
(6) Specific indefinite:
A dog is scratching the door, and I know which dog it is.

12

Types of indefinites(5) Nonspecific indefinite:
A dog is scratching the door, but I don’t know which dog.
(6) Specific indefinite:
A dog is scratching the door, and I know which dog it is.

12

Types of definites(7) Unique definites:
a. The teacher is scolding Maunmaun(uttered in a class with one teacher)b. The president is talking to Maunmaun(uttered in Myanmar)(8) Anaphoric definite:
Sansan was looking at a dog and a cat. She is buying the cat.

Various languages morphologically distinguish unique andanaphoric definites (Schwarz 2013).

13

Types of definites(7) Unique definites:
a. The teacher is scolding Maunmaun(uttered in a class with one teacher)b. The president is talking to Maunmaun(uttered in Myanmar)(8) Anaphoric definite:
Sansan was looking at a dog and a cat. She is buying the cat.

Various languages morphologically distinguish unique andanaphoric definites (Schwarz 2013).

13

Types of definites(7) Unique definites:
a. The teacher is scolding Maunmaun(uttered in a class with one teacher)b. The president is talking to Maunmaun(uttered in Myanmar)(8) Anaphoric definite:
Sansan was looking at a dog and a cat. She is buying the cat.

Various languages morphologically distinguish unique andanaphoric definites (Schwarz 2013).

13

(In)definites in Burmese

 As an article-less language, Burmese uses the numeral ‘one’and demonstratives to express (in)definiteness distinctions:• Singular indefinites use the numeral ‘one’ (cf Givón 1981)• Unique definites must be bare
• Anaphoric definites take the demonstrative ehdi or are bare
However, this pattern does not extend to object position for all
speakers! In this section, we consider data from subject position,
where judgments are uniform.

14

(In)definites in Burmese

 As an article-less language, Burmese uses the numeral ‘one’and demonstratives to express (in)definiteness distinctions:• Singular indefinites use the numeral ‘one’ (cf Givón 1981)• Unique definites must be bare
• Anaphoric definites take the demonstrative ehdi or are bare
However, this pattern does not extend to object position for all
speakers! In this section, we consider data from subject position,
where judgments are uniform.

14

(In)definites in Burmese

 As an article-less language, Burmese uses the numeral ‘one’and demonstratives to express (in)definiteness distinctions:• Singular indefinites use the numeral ‘one’ (cf Givón 1981)• Unique definites must be bare
• Anaphoric definites take the demonstrative ehdi or are bare
However, this pattern does not extend to object position for all
speakers! In this section, we consider data from subject position,
where judgments are uniform.

14Indefinites

Indefinites require the numeral ‘one’ with classifier. There is no
distinction between specific and nonspecific indefinites.

(9) Nonspecific indefinite:
You work at a doggy daycare. There are multiple dogs outside and you
and Hlahla are in the back room. You hear a dog scratching on thedoor, but don’t know which dog it is. You tell Hlahla:

Kwi *(tiq kaun)
ka tank’à ko c’iq-ne-teh
dog one cl.animal nom door acc scratch-prog-nfut‘A dog is scratching the door.’15

Indefinites
Indefinites require the numeral ‘one’ with classifier. There is no
distinction between specific and nonspecific indefinites.

(10) Specific indefinite:
You work in a doggy day care. There are multiple dogs in the roomwith you and you are on the phone with Hlahla. You see one of thedogs scratching on the door. Hlahla asks you what that noise is. You
tell her:Kwi *(tiq kaun)
ka tank’à ko c’iq-ne-teh
dog one cl.animal nom door acc scratch-prog-nfut‘A dog is scratching the door.’

16

Unique definites

Unique definites must be bare, without a demonstrative or numeral:(11) Immediate situation definite:
You and Maunmaun are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog, who isplaying with Maunmaun. Neither of you can see them right now. You
tell Hlahla:(*Ehdi) kwi (*tiq kaun)
ka MM ko cait-ne-teh.
dem dog one cl.animal nom MM acc like-prog-nfut‘The dog likes Maunmaun.’

17

Anaphoric definites
Anaphoric definites can be expressed bare, or with the medial
demonstrative ehdi:(12) Anaphoric definite:
You go to an adoption drive with MM. There’s an open area for the
animals to hang out and people to mingle about. Up for adoption area few dogs and cats. When MM causes trouble, you tell an organiser:[MM ka kwi tiq kaunnéh caun tiq kaunkoMM nom dog one cl.animal conj cat one cl.animal acc
hnauqshaq-ne-teh.] (Ehdi) kwi ka MM ko laiq-ne-teh.
bother-prog-nfut
dem dog nom MM acc chase-prog-nfut‘[MM was bothering a dog and a cat.] The dog is chasing MM.’18

Summary
 Burmese uses the presence or absence of demonstratives andthe numeral ‘one’ to encode singular definites and indefinites,
and also distinguishes unique vs anaphoric definites:

indef
unique def
anaphoric def

N
*
ok
ok

N 1-cl
ok
*
*

Dem N
*
*
ok

• This pattern holds for all four speakers for subject position.
• For one speaker, this pattern also extends to object position, but
for our three other speakers, object position behaves differently.
19

Summary
 Burmese uses the presence or absence of demonstratives andthe numeral ‘one’ to encode singular definites and indefinites,
and also distinguishes unique vs anaphoric definites:

indef
unique def
anaphoric def

N
*
ok
ok

N 1-cl
ok
*
*

Dem N
*
*
ok

• This pattern holds for all four speakers for subject position.
• For one speaker, this pattern also extends to object position, but
for our three other speakers, object position behaves differently.
19

Summary
 Burmese uses the presence or absence of demonstratives andthe numeral ‘one’ to encode singular definites and indefinites,
and also distinguishes unique vs anaphoric definites:

indef
unique def
anaphoric def

N
*
ok
ok

N 1-cl
ok
*
*

Dem N
*
*
ok

• This pattern holds for all four speakers for subject position.
• For one speaker, this pattern also extends to object position, but
for our three other speakers, object position behaves differently.
19§3 Indefinites in object
position20

Indefinites in object position
For three speakers, indefinites in object position can be bare.

(13)

Sànsàn ka [youn %(tiq kaun)ko] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit one cl.animal acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’ In this section, we set aside judgments from our one speaker
who consistently rejects bare noun indefinites.
We do not reproduce contexts for subsequent examples here. All
examples were evaluated/elicited in contexts which ensure theintended (in)definiteness and scope.
21

Indefinites in object position
For three speakers, indefinites in object position can be bare.

(13)

Sànsàn ka [youn %(tiq kaun)ko] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit one cl.animal acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’ In this section, we set aside judgments from our one speaker
who consistently rejects bare noun indefinites.
We do not reproduce contexts for subsequent examples here. All
examples were evaluated/elicited in contexts which ensure theintended (in)definiteness and scope.
21

Indefinites in object position
For three speakers, indefinites in object position can be bare.

(13)

Sànsàn ka [youn %(tiq kaun)ko] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit one cl.animal acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’ In this section, we set aside judgments from our one speaker
who consistently rejects bare noun indefinites.
We do not reproduce contexts for subsequent examples here. All
examples were evaluated/elicited in contexts which ensure theintended (in)definiteness and scope.
21

Indefinites in object position
Burmese thus has two types of indefinites in object position:(14) ‘One’-indefinite:Sànsàn ka [youn tiq kaun(ko)] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit one cl.animal acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’(15) Bare noun indefinite:Sànsàn ka [youn (%ko)] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’(‘…the rabbit’ possible for all speakers, with optional ko)
22

Indefinites in object position
Burmese thus has two types of indefinites in object position:(14) ‘One’-indefinite:Sànsàn ka [youn tiq kaun(ko)] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit one cl.animal acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’(15) Bare noun indefinite:Sànsàn ka [youn (%ko)] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’(‘…the rabbit’ possible for all speakers, with optional ko)
22

Indefinites in object position
Burmese thus has two types of indefinites in object position:(14) ‘One’-indefinite:Sànsàn ka [youn tiq kaun(ko)] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit one cl.animal acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’(15) Bare noun indefinite:Sànsàn ka [youn (%ko)] weh-ne-teh.
Sansan nom rabbit acc buy-prog-nfut‘Sansan is buying a rabbit.’(‘…the rabbit’ possible for all speakers, with optional ko)
22

Bare noun indefinites

Bare noun indefinites cannot be scrambled while retaining an
indefinite interpretation.

(16) Bare noun indefinite cannot be scrambled:[Caun] Sànsàn ka
catSansan nom

zhywei-ne-teh.
pick-prog-nfut* ‘Sansan is picking a cat.’
X ‘Sansan is picking the cat.’23

Bare noun indefinites
One speaker sometimes disallows adjectival modification:(17) Some variation in the acceptability of modifiers:
a. Sànsàn ka [caun apyu] zhywei-ne-teh
Sansan nom cat white pick-prog-nfut%? ‘Sansan is picking a white cat.’
X‘Sansan is picking the white cat.’b. Maunmaun ka [c’eh ànceh] weh-ne-teh
Maunmaun nom cotton shirt buy-prog-nfut%? ‘Maunmaun is buying a cotton shirt.’
X‘Maunmaun is buying the cotton shirt.’

24

Bare noun indefinites
Bare noun indefinites are compatible with other tense/aspect as well:(18) Bare noun indefinite with past perfective:
Maunmaun ka p’à sha-dui-laiq-teh.
Maunmaun nom frog search-find-asp-nfut
X ‘Maunmaun found a frog.’
X ‘Maunmaun found the frog.’(19) Bare noun indefinite with future:
Maunmaun ka youn weh-ma-louq.
Maunmaun nom rabbit buy-tam
X ‘Maunmaun is buying a rabbit.’X ‘Maunmaun is buying the rabbit.’25

Interim summary(For these speakers,) bare noun objects can be definite or indefinite.
Bare noun indefinites…
• disprefer the accusative case (consistently for one speaker,
inconsistently for another);• cannot be scrambled away from the verb;• allow modification (most of the time);• are compatible with all tense/aspects tested.
 We analyze bare noun indefinites as having undergone(Pseudo) Noun Incorporation (PNI) (Massam 2001, a.o.).
26

Interim summary(For these speakers,) bare noun objects can be definite or indefinite.
Bare noun indefinites…
• disprefer the accusative case (consistently for one speaker,
inconsistently for another);• cannot be scrambled away from the verb;• allow modification (most of the time);• are compatible with all tense/aspects tested.
 We analyze bare noun indefinites as having undergone(Pseudo) Noun Incorporation (PNI) (Massam 2001, a.o.).
26

Interim summary(For these speakers,) bare noun objects can be definite or indefinite.
Bare noun indefinites…
• disprefer the accusative case (consistently for one speaker,
inconsistently for another);• cannot be scrambled away from the verb;• allow modification (most of the time);• are compatible with all tense/aspects tested.
 We analyze bare noun indefinites as having undergone(Pseudo) Noun Incorporation (PNI) (Massam 2001, a.o.).
26

The scope of indefinites

Incorporated nominals are known to take strict narrow scope inmany languages (see e.g. Baker 1996, Massam 2001, Chung and
Ladusaw 2004).
 ‘One’-indefinites allow wide (and narrow) scope readings.
Bare noun indefinites only allow narrow scope readings.

27

The scope of indefinites

Incorporated nominals are known to take strict narrow scope inmany languages (see e.g. Baker 1996, Massam 2001, Chung and
Ladusaw 2004).
 ‘One’-indefinites allow wide (and narrow) scope readings.
Bare noun indefinites only allow narrow scope readings.

27

The scope of indefinites(20) Under negation:a. Sànsàn ka youn tiq kaun(ko) ma-weh-k’éh-bù.
Sansan nom rabbit one cl.animal acc neg-buy-past-neg
× ‘Sansan didn’t get any rabbits.’
X‘SS didn’t get one rabbit.’ (but got another)neg > ∃
∃ > negb. Sànsàn ka youn (ko) ma-weh-k’éh-bù.
Sansan nom rabbit acc neg-buy-past-neg
X‘Sansan didn’t get any rabbits.’
× ‘SS didn’t get one rabbit.’ (but got another)neg > ∃
∃ > neg

28

The scope of indefinites(21) Under modal verb ‘want’:a. Sànsàn dhuht’è tiq yauq
laqt’aq-cin-teh
Sansan rich.man one cl.person marry-want-nfut
X‘Sansan wants to marry a/any rich man.’want > ∃X‘Sansan wants to marry a specific rich man.’ ∃ > wantb. Sànsàn dhuht’è laqt’aq-cin-teh
Sansan rich.man marry-want-nfut
X‘Sansan wants to marry a/any rich man.’want > ∃× ‘Sansan wants to marry a specific rich man.’ ∃ > want

29

The scope of indefinites(22) In conditional clause:a. Nga ulè tiq yauq
dhe-yin, nga c’an-dha-meh.
1sg uncle one cl.human kill-if
1sg rich-asp-fut
X‘If I kill an/any uncle, I will be rich.’X‘If I kill a specific uncle, I will be rich.’

if > ∃∃ > ifb. Nga ulè dhe-yin, nga c’an-dha-meh.
1sg uncle kill-if
1sg rich-asp-fut
X‘If I kill an/any uncle, I will be rich.’× ‘If I kill a specific uncle, I will be rich.’

if > ∃∃ > if30

Summary: The scope of indefinites

For speakers with bare noun indefinites, in object position:negation‘want’
conditionalN
neg > ∃
want > ∃if > ∃

N 1-cl∃ > neg∃ > want, want > ∃∃ > if, if > ∃Burmese also has NPIs (wh-hma; see Erlewine and New 2019), whichallows for the expression of “neg > ∃” even for speakers withoutbare noun indefinites.

31§4 Analysis

32

GoalsWe develop an analysis for the interpretation of nominals in
Burmese, which accounts for these features:• Bare nouns always can be definite.
• Anaphoric definites allow for demonstratives.
• Nouns with ‘one’ are indefinite.
• Bare noun objects can be narrow-scope indefinites(for some speakers).

33

ApproachSetting aside bare noun indefinites for the moment…
• All NPs without quantifiers are definite descriptions via ι
type-shifting (Chierchia 1998), including ‘one’-indefinites.
• We follow the approach of Jenks 2018 for distinguishinganaphoric and unique definites.
• The numeral ‘one’ introduces a choice function, which isthen bound, making ‘one’-indefinites functionally indefinite but
syntactically akin to definites.
• A Non-Vacuity constraint on the adjunction of ‘one’ will
yield anti-uniqueness effects (§5).

34

ApproachSetting aside bare noun indefinites for the moment…
• All NPs without quantifiers are definite descriptions via ι
type-shifting (Chierchia 1998), including ‘one’-indefinites.
• We follow the approach of Jenks 2018 for distinguishinganaphoric and unique definites.
• The numeral ‘one’ introduces a choice function, which isthen bound, making ‘one’-indefinites functionally indefinite but
syntactically akin to definites.
• A Non-Vacuity constraint on the adjunction of ‘one’ will
yield anti-uniqueness effects (§5).

34

ApproachSetting aside bare noun indefinites for the moment…
• All NPs without quantifiers are definite descriptions via ι
type-shifting (Chierchia 1998), including ‘one’-indefinites.
• We follow the approach of Jenks 2018 for distinguishinganaphoric and unique definites.
• The numeral ‘one’ introduces a choice function, which isthen bound, making ‘one’-indefinites functionally indefinite but
syntactically akin to definites.
• A Non-Vacuity constraint on the adjunction of ‘one’ will
yield anti-uniqueness effects (§5).

34

Articulated definiteness in Mandarin (Jenks 2018)
Mandarin is another article-less language with bare noun definites(see e.g. Cheng and Sybesma 1999).

(23) Yueliang sheng shang lai-le.
moonrise upcome-pfv‘The moon has risen.’(Chen 2004: 1165)

For non-subjects, anaphoric definites require demonstratives:(24)[There is a boy and a girl in the classroom.]
Wo zuotian yudao #(na ge) nansheng.
1sg yesterday meet that cl boy‘I met the boy yesterday.’(Jenks 2018: 510)
35

Articulated definiteness in Mandarin (Jenks 2018)
Mandarin is another article-less language with bare noun definites(see e.g. Cheng and Sybesma 1999).

(23) Yueliang sheng shang lai-le.
moonrise upcome-pfv‘The moon has risen.’(Chen 2004: 1165)

For non-subjects, anaphoric definites require demonstratives:(24)[There is a boy and a girl in the classroom.]
Wo zuotian yudao #(na ge) nansheng.
1sg yesterday meet that cl boy‘I met the boy yesterday.’(Jenks 2018: 510)
35

Jenks 2018 on Mandarin bare definites
Following Chierchia 1998, bare nouns may undergo type-shifting byι (25), i.e. Schwarz’s (2009) weak definite determiner:(25) JιK = λsr . λPhe,hs,tii : ∃!x[P(x)(sr )] . ιx[P(x)(sr )]where sr is the “resource situation,” providing a contextual
restriction.
Nominal predicates hold in a situation (a sub-part of a world, or aworld; type s; see e.g. Kratzer 1989):(26) Jkwi ‘dog’K = λx . λs . x is a dog in s36

Jenks 2018 on Mandarin bare definites
Following Chierchia 1998, bare nouns may undergo type-shifting byι (25), i.e. Schwarz’s (2009) weak definite determiner:(25) JιK = λsr . λPhe,hs,tii : ∃!x[P(x)(sr )] . ιx[P(x)(sr )]where sr is the “resource situation,” providing a contextual
restriction.
Nominal predicates hold in a situation (a sub-part of a world, or aworld; type s; see e.g. Kratzer 1989):(26) Jkwi ‘dog’K = λx . λs . x is a dog in s
36Burmese bare noun definite
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…

NP
ι

sr

NP
kwi ‘dog’J[[ι sr ] kwi]K = ιx[x is a dog in sr ] = the unique dog in sr
presup: there is a unique dog in sr X
We treat the resource situation sr as free and pragmaticallydetermined.
37

Burmese bare noun definite
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…

NP
ι

sr

NP
kwi ‘dog’J[[ι sr ] kwi]K = ιx[x is a dog in sr ] = the unique dog in sr
presup: there is a unique dog in sr X
We treat the resource situation sr as free and pragmaticallydetermined.
37

Burmese bare noun definite
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…

NP
ι

sr

NP
kwi ‘dog’J[[ι sr ] kwi]K = ιx[x is a dog in sr ] = the unique dog in sr
presup: there is a unique dog in sr X
We treat the resource situation sr as free and pragmaticallydetermined.
37

Burmese bare noun definite
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…

NP
ι

sr

NP
kwi ‘dog’J[[ι sr ] kwi]K = ιx[x is a dog in sr ] = the unique dog in sr
presup: there is a unique dog in sr X
We treat the resource situation sr as free and pragmaticallydetermined.
37

Schwarz and Jenks on articulated definiteness

Anaphoric (strong) definites have a different denotation:(27) Jιx K = λy . λPhe,hs,tii: ∃!x[P(x)(w)∧x = y] . ιx[P(x)(w)∧x = y]ιx takes an index argument y, instead of a resource situation1 , andreturns that individual, presupposing that y satisfies P in w.

1

This follows a suggestion by Angelika Kratzer p.c. to Schwarz (2009: p. 264
fn. 16), and will turn out to be important. ιx is Jenks’s term.

38

Schwarz and Jenks on articulated definiteness

Anaphoric (strong) definites have a different denotation:(27) Jιx K = λy . λPhe,hs,tii∧x = yy] . ιx[P(x)(w)∧x∧x = yy]: ∃!x[P(x)(w)∧x
ιx takes an index argument y, instead of a resource situation1 , andreturns that individual, presupposing that y satisfies P in w.

1

This follows a suggestion by Angelika Kratzer p.c. to Schwarz (2009: p. 264
fn. 16), and will turn out to be important. ιx is Jenks’s term.

38

Jenks on articulated definiteness in Mandarin

 For Mandarin, Jenks proposes that demonstratives have thedenotation ιx , but the type-shifter for bare nouns is always ι,
not ιx .
We adopt this for Burmese.

39

Burmese noun with demonstrative
Context for anaphoric definite in (12): At an adoption drive with
MM… you tell an organizer: “MM was bothering a dog3 and a cat4 .”

DP
NP
D
ιx

3
kwi ‘dog’ehdi
J[[ehdi 3] kwi]K = ιx[x is a 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 X
40

Burmese noun with demonstrative
Context for anaphoric definite in (12): At an adoption drive with
MM… you tell an organizer: “MM was bothering a dog3 and a cat4 .”

DP
NP
D
ιx

3
kwi ‘dog’ehdi
J[[ehdi 3] kwi]K = ιx[x is a 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 X
40

Burmese noun with demonstrative
Context for anaphoric definite in (12): At an adoption drive with
MM… you tell an organizer: “MM was bothering a dog3 and a cat4 .”

DP
NP
D
ιx

3
kwi ‘dog’ehdi
J[[ehdi 3] kwi]K = ιx[x is a 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 X
40

Burmese noun with demonstrative
Context for anaphoric definite in (12): At an adoption drive with
MM… you tell an organizer: “MM was bothering a dog3 and a cat4 .”

DP
NP
D
ιx

3
kwi ‘dog’ehdi
J[[ehdi 3] kwi]K = ιx[x is a 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 X
40

Jenks on articulated definiteness in Mandarin

Note that we expect a bare noun (weak/ι) definite will often be
felicitous in a context that supports an anaphoric definite.
For Mandarin non-subjects, demonstratives are indeed required foranaphoric definites. Jenks proposes a principle Index!, for indices tobe represented syntactically when possible:“Because ιx includes an index that is absent in ι, ιx will be
preferred whenever it is available.”(Jenks 2018: 524)

41

Jenks on articulated definiteness in Mandarin

Note that we expect a bare noun (weak/ι) definite will often be
felicitous in a context that supports an anaphoric definite.
For Mandarin non-subjects, demonstratives are indeed required foranaphoric definites. Jenks proposes a principle Index!, for indices tobe represented syntactically when possible:“Because ιx includes an index that is absent in ι, ιx will be
preferred whenever it is available.”(Jenks 2018: 524)

41

Articulated definiteness in Burmese

But recall that the demonstrative is optional for Burmese anaphoric
definites. We have two options:
1. Propose that Index! does not hold in Burmese.
2. Propose a null variant of ehdi ιx in Burmese.
We will not distinguish between these two views today.

42

Articulated definiteness in Burmese

But recall that the demonstrative is optional for Burmese anaphoric
definites. We have two options:
1. Propose that Index! does not hold in Burmese.
2. Propose a null variant of ehdi ιx in Burmese.
We will not distinguish between these two views today.

42

Interim summary

X Bare nouns always can be definite.
X Anaphoric definites allow for demonstratives.
• Nouns with ‘one’ are indefinite.
• Bare noun objects can be narrow-scope indefinites (for somespeakers), with different scope-taking from ‘one’-indefinites.

43‘One’-indefinites

 We propose that ‘one’ is a modifier that restricts the nominal
domain to a singleton, using a choice function:2
(28)

q

y
[tiqf cl](type hhe, hs, tii, he, hs, tiii)= λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . x = f cf (λy . P(y)(sr ) ∧ atomcl (y))
Here, f is a choice function variable (type hhe, ti, ei).

2r

JclK =z λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . P(x)(sr ) ∧ atomcl (x)tiqf ‘one’ = λCLhhe,hs,tii,he,hs,tiii . λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . x = f cf (λy . CL(P)(y)(sr ))44‘One’-indefinites

 We propose that ‘one’ is a modifier that restricts the nominal
domain to a singleton, using a choice function:2
(28)

q

y
[tiqf cl](type hhe, hs, tii, he, hs, tiii)= λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . x = f cf (λy . P(y)(sr ) ∧ atomcl (y))
Here, f is a choice function variable (type hhe, ti, ei).

2r

JclK =z λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . P(x)(sr ) ∧ atomcl (x)tiqf ‘one’ = λCLhhe,hs,tii,he,hs,tiii . λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . x = f cf (λy . CL(P)(y)(sr ))44‘One’-indefinites

 We propose that ‘one’ is a modifier that restricts the nominal
domain to a singleton, using a choice function:2
(28)

q

y
[tiqf cl](type hhe, hs, tii, he, hs, tiii)= λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . x = f cf (λy . P(y)(sr ) ∧ atomcl (y))
Here, f is a choice function variable (type hhe, ti, ei).

2r

JclK =z λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . P(x)(sr ) ∧ atomcl (x)tiqf ‘one’ = λCLhhe,hs,tii,he,hs,tiii . λPhe,hs,tii . λx . λsr . x = f cf (λy . CL(P)(y)(sr ))44‘One’-indefinites
Like any bare noun, it undergoes the ι type-shift:
NP
ι

sr

NP

NP
kwi ‘dog’(29)

r‘one’fclanim

tiq

kaun

z
[[ι sr ] [kwi [tiqf kaun]]] = f (λy . y is an atomic dog in sr )presup: there is a unique x which is equal to what f returns
when given the set of atomic dogs in sr (always true)45‘One’-indefinites
Like any bare noun, it undergoes the ι type-shift:
NP
ι

sr

NP

NP
kwi ‘dog’(29)

r‘one’fclanim

tiq

kaun

z
[[ι sr ] [kwi [tiqf kaun]]] = f (λy . y is an atomic dog in sr )presup: there is a unique x which is equal to what f returns
when given the set of atomic dogs in sr (always true)45‘One’-indefinites(29) is formally a definite description, but its referent will depend on
the choice function f .
 We then adjoin a choice function binder ∃f cf higher in the tree.
This gives us a choice function indefinite out of a bare definite
description.

46

‘One’-indefinites(29) is formally a definite description, but its referent will depend on
the choice function f .
 We then adjoin a choice function binder ∃f cf higher in the tree.
This gives us a choice function indefinite out of a bare definite
description.

46

‘One’-indefinites
Context for nonspecific indefinite (9): There are multiple dogs outside…
You hear a dog scratching on the door, but don’t know which dog it is.

Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Bev, Stan, Spot}.
f cf (Y ) = Bev

g cf (Y ) = Stanhcf (Y ) = Spot(9’) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] is scratching the door in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) is scratching the door in w]; 1 iff Bev or Stan or Spot is scratching the door in w
This also applies to specific indefinites. We discuss the position of∃f cf later in this section, and discuss the unavailability of ‘one’ fordefinites in section 5.
47

‘One’-indefinites
Context for nonspecific indefinite (9): There are multiple dogs outside…
You hear a dog scratching on the door, but don’t know which dog it is.

Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Bev, Stan, Spot}.
f cf (Y ) = Bev

g cf (Y ) = Stanhcf (Y ) = Spot(9’) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] is scratching the door in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) is scratching the door in w]; 1 iff Bev or Stan or Spot is scratching the door in w
This also applies to specific indefinites. We discuss the position of∃f cf later in this section, and discuss the unavailability of ‘one’ fordefinites in section 5.
47

‘One’-indefinites
Context for nonspecific indefinite (9): There are multiple dogs outside…
You hear a dog scratching on the door, but don’t know which dog it is.

Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Bev, Stan, Spot}.
f cf (Y ) = Bev

g cf (Y ) = Stanhcf (Y ) = Spot(9’) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] is scratching the door in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) is scratching the door in w]; 1 iff Bev or Stan or Spot is scratching the door in w
This also applies to specific indefinites. We discuss the position of∃f cf later in this section, and discuss the unavailability of ‘one’ fordefinites in section 5.
47

‘One’-indefinites
Context for nonspecific indefinite (9): There are multiple dogs outside…
You hear a dog scratching on the door, but don’t know which dog it is.

Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Bev, Stan, Spot}.
f cf (Y ) = Bev

g cf (Y ) = Stanhcf (Y ) = Spot(9’) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] is scratching the door in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) is scratching the door in w]; 1 iff Bev or Stan or Spot is scratching the door in w
This also applies to specific indefinites. We discuss the position of∃f cf later in this section, and discuss the unavailability of ‘one’ fordefinites in section 5.
47

‘One’-indefinites
Context for nonspecific indefinite (9): There are multiple dogs outside…
You hear a dog scratching on the door, but don’t know which dog it is.

Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Bev, Stan, Spot}.
f cf (Y ) = Bev

g cf (Y ) = Stanhcf (Y ) = Spot(9’) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] is scratching the door in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) is scratching the door in w]; 1 iff Bev or Stan or Spot is scratching the door in w
This also applies to specific indefinites. We discuss the position of∃f cf later in this section, and discuss the unavailability of ‘one’ fordefinites in section 5.
47

‘One’-indefinites
Context for nonspecific indefinite (9): There are multiple dogs outside…
You hear a dog scratching on the door, but don’t know which dog it is.

Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Bev, Stan, Spot}.
f cf (Y ) = Bev

g cf (Y ) = Stanhcf (Y ) = Spot(9’) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] is scratching the door in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) is scratching the door in w]; 1 iff Bev or Stan or Spot is scratching the door in w
This also applies to specific indefinites. We discuss the position of∃f cf later in this section, and discuss the unavailability of ‘one’ fordefinites in section 5.
47

‘One’-indefinites
Context for nonspecific indefinite (9): There are multiple dogs outside…
You hear a dog scratching on the door, but don’t know which dog it is.

Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Bev, Stan, Spot}.
f cf (Y ) = Bev

g cf (Y ) = Stanhcf (Y ) = Spot(9’) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] is scratching the door in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) is scratching the door in w]; 1 iff Bev or Stan or Spot is scratching the door in w
This also applies to specific indefinites. We discuss the position of∃f cf later in this section, and discuss the unavailability of ‘one’ fordefinites in section 5.
47

Bare noun indefinites

Recall that bare noun indefinites are NPs without ‘one’ in object
position with indefinite interpretation.
• Subject to speaker variation.
• Accusative case and modification sometimes dispreferred.
• Must stay VP-internal (cannot be scrambled).
• Take consistently narrow scope.
 Bare noun indefinites undergo (Pseudo) Noun Incorporation.

48

Bare noun indefinites

Recall that bare noun indefinites are NPs without ‘one’ in object
position with indefinite interpretation.
• Subject to speaker variation.
• Accusative case and modification sometimes dispreferred.
• Must stay VP-internal (cannot be scrambled).
• Take consistently narrow scope.
 Bare noun indefinites undergo (Pseudo) Noun Incorporation.

48

Bare noun indefinites

Recall that bare noun indefinites are NPs without ‘one’ in object
position with indefinite interpretation.
• Subject to speaker variation.
• Accusative case and modification sometimes dispreferred.
• Must stay VP-internal (cannot be scrambled).
• Take consistently narrow scope.
 Bare noun indefinites undergo (Pseudo) Noun Incorporation.

48

Bare noun indefinites
For concreteness, we implement an intensionalized version of
Chung and Ladusaw’s (2004) Restrict and existential closure (EC):

VP

(30)

NPhe, hs, tii

Vhe, he, hs, tiii

rabbitbuy

EC (Restrict (JbuyK , JrabbitK))= λy . λw . ∃x[y buys x in w ∧ x rabbit in w]

EC applies at the VP/vP level, following Diesing 1992 a.o., so barenoun indefinites always takes narrow scope.
49

Bare noun indefinites
For concreteness, we implement an intensionalized version of
Chung and Ladusaw’s (2004) Restrict and existential closure (EC):

VP

(30)

NPhe, hs, tii

Vhe, he, hs, tiii

rabbitbuy

EC (Restrict (JbuyK , JrabbitK))= λy . λw . ∃x[y buys x in w ∧ x rabbit in w]

EC applies at the VP/vP level, following Diesing 1992 a.o., so barenoun indefinites always takes narrow scope.
49

Bare noun indefinites
For concreteness, we implement an intensionalized version of
Chung and Ladusaw’s (2004) Restrict and existential closure (EC):restrict+EC
VPhe, hs, tii(30)NPhe, hs, tii

Vhe, he, hs, tiii

rabbitbuy

EC (Restrict (JbuyK , JrabbitK))= λy . λw . ∃x[y buys x in w ∧ x rabbit in w]

EC applies at the VP/vP level, following Diesing 1992 a.o., so barenoun indefinites always takes narrow scope.
49

Bare noun indefinites
For concreteness, we implement an intensionalized version of
Chung and Ladusaw’s (2004) Restrict and existential closure (EC):restrict+EC
VPhe, hs, tii(30)NPhe, hs, tii

Vhe, he, hs, tiii

rabbitbuy

EC (Restrict (JbuyK , JrabbitK))= λy . λw . ∃x[y buys x in w ∧ x rabbit in w]

EC applies at the VP/vP level, following Diesing 1992 a.o., so barenoun indefinites always takes narrow scope.
49

The scope of indefinites
In contrast, the scope of ‘one’-indefinites is determined by theattachment height of ∃f cf :
 For concreteness, suppose ∃ fcf always adjoins to a TP.
• Negation: Assume T > Neg > vP.
⇒ ‘One’-indefinites necessarily scope over negation• ‘Want’: Assume ‘want’ embeds a TP.
⇒ ‘One’-indefinite could scope above or below ‘want’:∃ fcf ) [TP … want (∃∃ fcf ) [TP …onef …]](∃• Conditionals:⇒ ‘One’-indefinite can scope above or below if :∃ fcf ) [TP [ if (∃∃ fcf ) [TP …onef … ]] … ](∃50

The scope of indefinites
In contrast, the scope of ‘one’-indefinites is determined by theattachment height of ∃f cf :
 For concreteness, suppose ∃ fcf always adjoins to a TP.
• Negation: Assume T > Neg > vP.
⇒ ‘One’-indefinites necessarily scope over negation• ‘Want’: Assume ‘want’ embeds a TP.
⇒ ‘One’-indefinite could scope above or below ‘want’:∃ fcf ) [TP … want (∃∃ fcf ) [TP …onef …]](∃• Conditionals:⇒ ‘One’-indefinite can scope above or below if :∃ fcf ) [TP [ if (∃∃ fcf ) [TP …onef … ]] … ](∃50

The scope of indefinites
In contrast, the scope of ‘one’-indefinites is determined by theattachment height of ∃f cf :
 For concreteness, suppose ∃ fcf always adjoins to a TP.
• Negation: Assume T > Neg > vP.
⇒ ‘One’-indefinites necessarily scope over negation• ‘Want’: Assume ‘want’ embeds a TP.
⇒ ‘One’-indefinite could scope above or below ‘want’:∃ fcf ) [TP … want (∃∃ fcf ) [TP …onef …]](∃• Conditionals:⇒ ‘One’-indefinite can scope above or below if :∃ fcf ) [TP [ if (∃∃ fcf ) [TP …onef … ]] … ](∃50

The scope of indefinites
In contrast, the scope of ‘one’-indefinites is determined by theattachment height of ∃f cf :
 For concreteness, suppose ∃ fcf always adjoins to a TP.
• Negation: Assume T > Neg > vP.
⇒ ‘One’-indefinites necessarily scope over negation• ‘Want’: Assume ‘want’ embeds a TP.
⇒ ‘One’-indefinite could scope above or below ‘want’:∃ fcf ) [TP … want (∃∃ fcf ) [TP …onef …]](∃• Conditionals:⇒ ‘One’-indefinite can scope above or below if :∃ fcf ) [TP [ if (∃∃ fcf ) [TP …onef … ]] … ](∃50

The scope of indefinites

Our analysis thus derives the distinct scope-taking behavior of barenoun indefinites and ‘one’-indefinites:

negation‘want’
conditionalN
neg > ∃
want > ∃if > ∃

N 1-cl∃ > neg∃ > want, want > ∃∃ > if, if > ∃51

§5 More on ‘one’52‘One’-definites?
We currently predict “N one-cl” to be felicitous in contexts that
support a (unique or anaphoric) definite, contrary to fact.
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…
Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Kona}.
(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w
 The availability of “N” must block “N one-cl” in some way.

53

‘One’-definites?
We currently predict “N one-cl” to be felicitous in contexts that
support a (unique or anaphoric) definite, contrary to fact.
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…
Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Kona}.
(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w
 The availability of “N” must block “N one-cl” in some way.

53

‘One’-definites?
We currently predict “N one-cl” to be felicitous in contexts that
support a (unique or anaphoric) definite, contrary to fact.
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…
Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Kona}.
(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w
 The availability of “N” must block “N one-cl” in some way.

53

‘One’-definites?
We currently predict “N one-cl” to be felicitous in contexts that
support a (unique or anaphoric) definite, contrary to fact.
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…
Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Kona}.
(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w
 The availability of “N” must block “N one-cl” in some way.

53

‘One’-definites?
We currently predict “N one-cl” to be felicitous in contexts that
support a (unique or anaphoric) definite, contrary to fact.
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…
Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Kona}.
(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w
 The availability of “N” must block “N one-cl” in some way.

53

‘One’-definites?
We currently predict “N one-cl” to be felicitous in contexts that
support a (unique or anaphoric) definite, contrary to fact.
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…
Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Kona}.
(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w
 The availability of “N” must block “N one-cl” in some way.

53

‘One’-definites?
We currently predict “N one-cl” to be felicitous in contexts that
support a (unique or anaphoric) definite, contrary to fact.
Context for immediate situation definite (11): You and Maunmaun
are at Hlahla’s house. She has one dog…
Let Y = {y : y is an atomic dog in sr } = {Kona}.
(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w
 The availability of “N” must block “N one-cl” in some way.

53

Blocking ‘one’-definites(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w(11’) LF: [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog]] likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff the unique dog in sr likes Maunmaun in w
presup: there is a unique dog in sr

1. “N” introduces a uniqueness presupposition. “N” may block “N
one-cl” by Maximize Presupposition (Heim 1991).
2. “N one-cl” differs from “N” only in the addition of adjoinedmaterial. A Non-Vacuity requirement on adjunction may
rule out “N one-cl” where “N” is available.
54

Blocking ‘one’-definites(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w(11’) LF: [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog]] likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff the unique dog in sr likes Maunmaun in w
presup: there is a unique dog in sr

1. “N” introduces a uniqueness presupposition. “N” may block “N
one-cl” by Maximize Presupposition (Heim 1991).
2. “N one-cl” differs from “N” only in the addition of adjoinedmaterial. A Non-Vacuity requirement on adjunction may
rule out “N one-cl” where “N” is available.
54

Blocking ‘one’-definites(31) LF: ∃f cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [onef cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]= ∃f cf [ f (λy . y atomic dog in sr ) likes Maunmaun in w]; 1 iff Kona likes Maunmaun in w(11’) LF: ∃ff cl]]] likes Maunmaun in w]
cf [ [NP [ι sr ] [dog [one//////////////; 1 iff the unique dog in sr likes Maunmaun in w
presup: there is a unique dog in sr
1. “N” introduces a uniqueness presupposition. “N” may block “N
one-cl” by Maximize Presupposition (Heim 1991).
2. “N one-cl” differs from “N” only in the addition of adjoinedmaterial. A Non-Vacuity requirement on adjunction may
rule out “N one-cl” where “N” is available.
54

Blocking ‘one’-definites
 We argue that the Non-Vacuity approach is superior to theMaximize Presupposition approach. More specifically:• When there is a unique referent for NP in sr , and it is cl-atomic:
 qy{x : JNPK (x)(sr )} = x : [ NP [onef cl]] (x)(sr )is true regardless of the choice of f .
• We propose that Non-Vacuity is evaluated locally, at thispoint of adjunction,3 making the addition of “one-cl”
ungrammatical if the denotation of the resulting NP (in therelevant situation sr ) is guaranteed to not change.
3This requires look-ahead to the relevant situation variable specified by thedeterminer, e.g. ι / ιx . An alternative would be for NP predicates to take situation
variables directly (Keshet 2010, von Fintel and Heim 2011), pace Schwarz 2012.

55

Blocking ‘one’-definites
 We argue that the Non-Vacuity approach is superior to theMaximize Presupposition approach. More specifically:• When there is a unique referent for NP in sr , and it is cl-atomic:
 qy{x : JNPK (x)(sr )} = x : [ NP [onef cl]] (x)(sr )is true regardless of the choice of f .
• We propose that Non-Vacuity is evaluated locally, at thispoint of adjunction,3 making the addition of “one-cl”
ungrammatical if the denotation of the resulting NP (in therelevant situation sr ) is guaranteed to not change.
3This requires look-ahead to the relevant situation variable specified by thedeterminer, e.g. ι / ιx . An alternative would be for NP predicates to take situation
variables directly (Keshet 2010, von Fintel and Heim 2011), pace Schwarz 2012.

55

Blocking ‘one’-definites
 We argue that the Non-Vacuity approach is superior to theMaximize Presupposition approach. More specifically:• When there is a unique referent for NP in sr , and it is cl-atomic:
 qy{x : JNPK (x)(sr )} = x : [ NP [onef cl]] (x)(sr )is true regardless of the choice of f .
• We propose that Non-Vacuity is evaluated locally, at thispoint of adjunction,3 making the addition of “one-cl”
ungrammatical if the denotation of the resulting NP (in therelevant situation sr ) is guaranteed to not change.
3This requires look-ahead to the relevant situation variable specified by thedeterminer, e.g. ι / ιx . An alternative would be for NP predicates to take situation
variables directly (Keshet 2010, von Fintel and Heim 2011), pace Schwarz 2012.

55

Anaphoric definites with ‘one’ This approach is supported by the fact that anaphoric
definites can take ‘one’:(32) You and MM are at a petting zoo when HH runs into you. The petting
zoo has one horse and a few goats. All of you know this. HH asks you
how MM’s liking the petting zoo. You tell her:

[MM ka myin néh s’aq tiq kaun
ko cait-teh.]
MM nom horse conj goat one cl.animal acc liked-nfut
MM ka ehdi myin (tiq kaun)
ko c’ui-ne-teh.
MM nom dem horse one cl.animal acc feed-prog-nfut‘[Maunmaun likes the horse5 and a goat6 .] Maunmaun isfeeding the horse5 .’56

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff for some f cf , MM is feedingιx[x = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) for some f cf
= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding ιx[x atomic horse in w ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: there is a unique [atomic horse in w that is g(5)]= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
57

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff for some f cf , MM is feedingιx[x = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) for some f cf
= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding ιx[x atomic horse in w ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: there is a unique [atomic horse in w that is g(5)]= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
57

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff for some f cf , MM is feedingιx[x = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) for some f cf
= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding ιx[x atomic horse in w ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: there is a unique [atomic horse in w that is g(5)]= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
57

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff for some f cf , MM is feedingιx[x = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) for some f cf
= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding ιx[x atomic horse in w ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: there is a unique [atomic horse in w that is g(5)]= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
57

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff for some f cf , MM is feedingιx[x = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) for some f cf
= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding ιx[x atomic horse in w ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: there is a unique [atomic horse in w that is g(5)]= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
57

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff for some f cf , MM is feedingιx[x = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) for some f cf
= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding ιx[x atomic horse in w ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: there is a unique [atomic horse in w that is g(5)]= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
57

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff for some f cf , MM is feedingιx[x = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) for some f cf
= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding ιx[x atomic horse in w ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: there is a unique [atomic horse in w that is g(5)]= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
57

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff for some f cf , MM is feedingιx[x = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) = f (λy . y atomic horse in w) for some f cf
= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding ιx[x atomic horse in w ∧ x = g(5)]= 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: there is a unique [atomic horse in w that is g(5)]= g(5) is an atomic horse in w
57

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w

X Maximize Presupposition predicts no blocking.
× Global Non-Vacuity predicts blocking!
X Local Non-Vacuity predicts no blocking: qy{x : JhorseK (x)(w)} = x : [horse [onef cl]] (x)(w)
is false for all choices of f , as long as we’re in a world withmultiple horses in it…
58

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w

X Maximize Presupposition predicts no blocking.
× Global Non-Vacuity predicts blocking!
X Local Non-Vacuity predicts no blocking: qy{x : JhorseK (x)(w)} = x : [horse [onef cl]] (x)(w)
is false for all choices of f , as long as we’re in a world withmultiple horses in it…
58

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w

X Maximize Presupposition predicts no blocking.
× Global Non-Vacuity predicts blocking!
X Local Non-Vacuity predicts no blocking: qy{x : JhorseK (x)(w)} = x : [horse [onef cl]] (x)(w)
is false for all choices of f , as long as we’re in a world withmultiple horses in it…
58

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w

X Maximize Presupposition predicts no blocking.
× Global Non-Vacuity predicts blocking!
X Local Non-Vacuity predicts no blocking: qy{x : JhorseK (x)(w)} = x : [horse [onef cl]] (x)(w)
is false for all choices of f , as long as we’re in a world withmultiple horses in it…
58

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’(32a) LF: ∃f cf [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse [onef cl]]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w
(32b)

LF: [MM is feeding [DP [ιx 5] [NP horse]]]; 1 iff MM is feeding g(5)presup: g(5) is an atomic horse in w

X Maximize Presupposition predicts no blocking.
× Global Non-Vacuity predicts blocking!
X Local Non-Vacuity predicts no blocking: qy{x : JhorseK (x)(w)} = x : [horse [onef cl]] (x)(w)
is false for all choices of f , as long as we’re in a world withmultiple horses in it…
58

Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’ Local Non-Vacuity predicts anaphoric definites with globallyunique entities to disallow ‘one.’ MP predicts no such contrast.
(33) You run into Hlahla and Sansan on a hill at the break of dawn. You
ask them what they are doing. Hlahla says:[Ne tuaq-ne-pi.]
sun rise-prog-tam
ko sha-ne-teh.
Aung ka ehdi ne (?#tiq lòu)
Aung nom dem sun
one cl.round acc look-prog-nfut‘[The sun is rising.] Aung is looking for the sun.’
Speaker comment with tiq lou: Ok if there are other suns.

59Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’ Local Non-Vacuity predicts anaphoric definites with globallyunique entities to disallow ‘one.’ MP predicts no such contrast.
(33) You run into Hlahla and Sansan on a hill at the break of dawn. You
ask them what they are doing. Hlahla says:[Ne tuaq-ne-pi.]
sun rise-prog-tam
Aung ka ehdi ne (?#tiq lòu)
ko sha-ne-teh.
Aung nom dem sun
one cl.round acc look-prog-nfut‘[The sun is rising.] Aung is looking for the sun.’
Speaker comment with tiq lou: Ok if there are other suns.

59Anaphoric definites with and without ‘one’ Local Non-Vacuity predicts anaphoric definites with globallyunique entities to disallow ‘one.’ MP predicts no such contrast.
(33) You run into Hlahla and Sansan on a hill at the break of dawn. You
ask them what they are doing. Hlahla says:[Ne tuaq-ne-pi.]
sun rise-prog-tam
Aung ka ehdi ne (?#tiq lòu)
ko sha-ne-teh.
Aung nom dem sun
one cl.round acc look-prog-nfut‘[The sun is rising.] Aung is looking for the sun.’
Speaker comment with tiq lou: Ok if there are other suns.

59Summary• In the basic case (modulo PNI), bare “N” is always definite and“N one-cl” is always indefinite.
 A Non-Vacuity constraint blocks “one-cl” when its addition
will not restrict the domain. Non-Vacuity derives
anti-uniqueness inferences of ‘one’-indefinites (Hawkins 1978).
• The (somewhat surprising) availability of ‘one’ with anaphoric
definites — and its sensitivity to global uniqueness — supports
this account over a Maximize Presupposition account.
• Can we also derive a Novelty constraint (Heim 1982)?
(But maybe it’s ok if we don’t…)

60

Summary• In the basic case (modulo PNI), bare “N” is always definite and“N one-cl” is always indefinite.
 A Non-Vacuity constraint blocks “one-cl” when its addition
will not restrict the domain. Non-Vacuity derives
anti-uniqueness inferences of ‘one’-indefinites (Hawkins 1978).
• The (somewhat surprising) availability of ‘one’ with anaphoric
definites — and its sensitivity to global uniqueness — supports
this account over a Maximize Presupposition account.
• Can we also derive a Novelty constraint (Heim 1982)?
(But maybe it’s ok if we don’t…)

60

Summary• In the basic case (modulo PNI), bare “N” is always definite and“N one-cl” is always indefinite.
 A Non-Vacuity constraint blocks “one-cl” when its addition
will not restrict the domain. Non-Vacuity derives
anti-uniqueness inferences of ‘one’-indefinites (Hawkins 1978).
• The (somewhat surprising) availability of ‘one’ with anaphoric
definites — and its sensitivity to global uniqueness — supports
this account over a Maximize Presupposition account.
• Can we also derive a Novelty constraint (Heim 1982)?
(But maybe it’s ok if we don’t…)

60

Summary• In the basic case (modulo PNI), bare “N” is always definite and“N one-cl” is always indefinite.
 A Non-Vacuity constraint blocks “one-cl” when its addition
will not restrict the domain. Non-Vacuity derives
anti-uniqueness inferences of ‘one’-indefinites (Hawkins 1978).
• The (somewhat surprising) availability of ‘one’ with anaphoric
definites — and its sensitivity to global uniqueness — supports
this account over a Maximize Presupposition account.
• Can we also derive a Novelty constraint (Heim 1982)?
(But maybe it’s ok if we don’t…)

60

§6 Conclusion

61

Summary

indef
unique def
anaphoric defN* (%obj)okok

N 1-cl
ok
*

Dem N
*
*
ok

Dem N 1-cl**
ok

• We analyze bare nouns as definites and propose an approach to‘one’ which forms choice function indefinites from definites.
• Some speakers allow bare noun indefinites, which take scope
differently from ‘one’-indefinites.
• The distinction between unique and anaphoric definites intaking ‘one’ supports our analysis of ‘one,’ constrained by local
Non-Vacuity.
62Summary

indef
unique def
anaphoric defN* (%obj)okok

N 1-cl
ok
*

Dem N
*
*
ok

Dem N 1-cl**
ok

• We analyze bare nouns as definites and propose an approach to‘one’ which forms choice function indefinites from definites.
• Some speakers allow bare noun indefinites, which take scope
differently from ‘one’-indefinites.
• The distinction between unique and anaphoric definites intaking ‘one’ supports our analysis of ‘one,’ constrained by local
Non-Vacuity.
62Summary

indef
unique def
anaphoric defN* (%obj)okok

N 1-cl
ok
*

Dem N
*
*
ok

Dem N 1-cl**
ok

• We analyze bare nouns as definites and propose an approach to‘one’ which forms choice function indefinites from definites.
• Some speakers allow bare noun indefinites, which take scope
differently from ‘one’-indefinites.
• The distinction between unique and anaphoric definites intaking ‘one’ supports our analysis of ‘one,’ constrained by local
Non-Vacuity.
62Summary

indef
unique defN* (%obj)okanaphoric def

okN 1-cl
ok
*

Dem N
*
*
ok

Dem N 1-cl**
ok
if globally non-unique• We analyze bare nouns as definites and propose an approach to‘one’ which forms choice function indefinites from definites.
• Some speakers allow bare noun indefinites, which take scope
differently from ‘one’-indefinites.
• The distinction between unique and anaphoric definites intaking ‘one’ supports our analysis of ‘one,’ constrained by local
Non-Vacuity.
62Summary

indef
unique defN* (%obj)ok

N 1-cl
ok
*

Dem N
*
*

anaphoric def

ok

?

ok

Dem N 1-cl**
ok
if globally non-unique• We analyze bare nouns as definites and propose an approach to‘one’ which forms choice function indefinites from definites.
• Some speakers allow bare noun indefinites, which take scope
differently from ‘one’-indefinites.
• The distinction between unique and anaphoric definites intaking ‘one’ supports our analysis of ‘one,’ constrained by local
Non-Vacuity.
62A puzzling example(34) You, Maunmaun and Sansan are in pet store. The store has multiple
cats and dogs for sale. Sansan asks you which pet Maunmaun isinterested in getting. You tell her:
[Maunmaun ka kwi tiq kaun
yeh jiaung tiq kaun
Maunmaun nom dog one cl.animal conj cat
one cl.animal
yeh ci-ne-ta.]conj look-prog-ta
Maunmaun ka kwi tiq kaun
ko weh-ne-teh.
Maunmaun nom dog one cl.animal acc buy-prog-nfut‘[MM is looking at a dogi and a cat.] MM is buying the dogi .’63

A puzzling example

Kwi tiq kaun “dog one-cl” in (34) could be…
• A demonstrative-less anaphoric definite with ‘one’:Possible under the view that there is a null variant of ehdi ιx .
• An indefinite not subject to a Novelty condition:
Perhaps with kwi tiq kaun in the first sentence introducing aparticular choice function f into the discourse, which isreferenced in the second sentence’s kwi tiq kaun?
How can we distinguish these two views? Suggestions welcome!

64

A puzzling example

Kwi tiq kaun “dog one-cl” in (34) could be…
• A demonstrative-less anaphoric definite with ‘one’:Possible under the view that there is a null variant of ehdi ιx .
• An indefinite not subject to a Novelty condition:
Perhaps with kwi tiq kaun in the first sentence introducing aparticular choice function f into the discourse, which isreferenced in the second sentence’s kwi tiq kaun?
How can we distinguish these two views? Suggestions welcome!

64

A puzzling example

Kwi tiq kaun “dog one-cl” in (34) could be…
• A demonstrative-less anaphoric definite with ‘one’:Possible under the view that there is a null variant of ehdi ιx .
• An indefinite not subject to a Novelty condition:
Perhaps with kwi tiq kaun in the first sentence introducing aparticular choice function f into the discourse, which isreferenced in the second sentence’s kwi tiq kaun?
How can we distinguish these two views? Suggestions welcome!

64Plurals and higher numerals

Q: Does this analysis of ‘one’ extend to other numerals too?
Preliminarily, “N #-cl” with higher numerals appear to naturally
allow definite plural readings, in contrast to “N one-cl.”
This may suggests a grammaticalized split between ‘one’ and othernumerals, perhaps on the way to forming an indefinite determiner(see e.g. Givón 1981).

65

Plurals and higher numerals

Q: Does this analysis of ‘one’ extend to other numerals too?
Preliminarily, “N #-cl” with higher numerals appear to naturally
allow definite plural readings, in contrast to “N one-cl.”
This may suggests a grammaticalized split between ‘one’ and othernumerals, perhaps on the way to forming an indefinite determiner(see e.g. Givón 1981).

65

Plurals and higher numerals

Q: Does this analysis of ‘one’ extend to other numerals too?
Preliminarily, “N #-cl” with higher numerals appear to naturally
allow definite plural readings, in contrast to “N one-cl.”
This may suggests a grammaticalized split between ‘one’ and othernumerals, perhaps on the way to forming an indefinite determiner(see e.g. Givón 1981).

65Thank you!

Thank you! Questions?
Q&A session: Friday, July 24th, 10:30am CEST / 4:30pm Singapore
We thank our speakers Phyo Thi Han, Kaung Mon Thu, Phyo Thura
Htay, and Nyan Lin Htoo. For comments and discussion, we thankmembers of the NUS syntax/semantics lab and Hadas Kotek.

66

References I
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press.
Chen, Ping. 2004. Identifiability and definiteness in Chinese. Linguistics
42:1129–1184.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint P. E. Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-barenouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30:509–542.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across langauges. Natural
Language Semantics 6:339–405.
Chung, Sandra, and William A. Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and saturation.
MIT Press.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. MIT Press.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Keely Zuo-Qi New. 2019. A variably
exhaustive and scalar focus particle and pragmatic focus concord in
Burmese. Manuscript, National University of Singapore.

67

References II
von Fintel, Kai, and Irene Heim. 2011. Intensional semantics. Manuscript,
MIT.
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 andDieter Wunderlich. Walter de Gruyter.
Heim, Irene Roswitha. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite nounphrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Jenks, Peter. 2018. Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic
Inquiry 49:501–536.

68

References III
Jenny, Mathias, and San San Hnin Tun. 2013. Differential subject marking
without ergativity: The case of colloquial Burmese. Studies in Language
37:693–725.
Keshet, Ezra. 2010. Situation economy. Natural Language Semantics
18:385–434.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation into the lumps of thought.
Linguistics and Philosophy 12:607–653.
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 19:153–197.
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Schwarz, Florian. 2012. Situation pronouns in determiner phrases. Natural
Language Semantics 20:431–475.

69

References IV

Schwarz, Florian. 2013. Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically.
Language and Linguistics Compass 7:534–559.
Simpson, Andrew. 2005. Classifiers and DP structure in Southeast Asia. In
The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, ed. Guglielmo Cinque andRichard Kayne. Oxford University Press.
Soe, Myint. 1999. A grammar of Burmese. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Oregon.

70