Yuko Kobukata & Yoshiki Mori - Definiteness Effect, Sortal – Relational Distinction and Information Structure

In this paper, we argue that there are at three readings for the existential constructions and the possessive constructions in English and Japanese. They can be attested to both constructions in the almost parallel manner. They are called DE reading (1), presentation or list reading (2) and control reading (3).

(1)     a.     There are tables/*the tables in the room.
         b.     John has a/*the sister.
(2)     a.     A: Who is at the party? -- B: Well, there’s Mary.
         b.     A: Who can help John? -- B: John has Sally.
(3)    a.     ##
         b.     A: Where are old ladies? – B: I have them. (*But I can’t seem to find them.)

There are at least three asymmetricities we observe on these readings. The first one concerns the definiteness effect (DE), which is usually attested both to the subject of the existential constructions and the object of the possessive constructions. It only applies to one of their readings (1). The other two readings are not restricted to the indefinite NP.
   The second asymmetry we would like to show resides in the absence of corresponding existential constructions to the control reading in (3b) (therefore “##” in (3a)). On the conceptual level, it is reflected in the fact that what is to “control” in (3) as “existence” is to “possession” in (1) cannot be easily found. The nearest approximation would be the monovalent BE (“Neuroses just are.” (Cann et al. 2005:334)). On the empirical level, a “control” reading can be approximately attested to the copula when the latter is combined with predicates like “careful” and “alert”. However, naked predicative complementation is somehow restricted (on the specificity of the subject in (4) and with the progressive “being” in (5)).

(4)    a.     John/?A boy is (being) careful with the gun.
         b.    Mary/?A girl is (being) alert to implicit implications of his irony.
(5)    a.        There is a boy *(being) careful with the gun.
         b.    There is a girl *(being) alert to implicit implications of his irony.

   The third asymmetry has to do with a Japanese–English contrast in possessive constructions. It is possible for (1b) and (2b) to be translated into Japanese, whereas it is not possible for (3b) to do so, as (6B) shows. That means that definite objects as topic in a question–answer pair are unacceptable in Japanese possessive constructions:

(6)    A:    Watashi-no kasa doko ni a-ru no ?
                my umbrella where be-PRES Q ?
                 ‘Where is my umbrella?’
       B:     #John-ni   sono kasa-ga   a-ru.
                John-DAT the umbrella-NOM be-PRES
               ‘John has it.’

It is crucial to notice that these three readings are separated from each other by several criteria both on the nominal side and on the verbal side. The more important are nominal properties. On the nominal side, the classification is not only related to the (in-)definiteness restriction but also to the relational–sortal distinction of head nouns. As for the definiteness restriction, the presentation reading is neutral, but the control reading seems to have indefiniteness effect (IDE). This is true both for “there be” and “have”. As for sortality, the DE reading of “have” is correlated with the relational head noun of its object, the presentation reading with the sortal one at first sight. We claim, however, that the reinterpretation from sortal noun to relational noun takes place in this context. In contrast, it is a sortal noun in the object position that is apt for the control reading of “have”. So, the distribution of definiteness over three readings is tightly correlated with sortality distribution here.    Moreover, this correlation in the concerning nominal (subject of “there be” and object of “have”) is also related to the information-structural status of the nominal, which must be sharply distinguished from the definiteness status of it. Whereas both topic and focus status can be attributed to the concerning nominal in the DE reading, only the focus status pertains to the presentation reading and the topic status to the control reading. If there is no control reading available for existential constructions, it must be because they are bound to the focus status of their subject. In contrast, the object of possessive constructions stays unaffected by the strict topic-focus distinction.