Construct State and Reference to a Kind Genericity

Indefinite CS cannot be used as kind-denoting expressions. This becomes intuitively

explicable if we remember that the indefinite CS denotes variable individuals to which the descriptive content of the CS applies; it cannot be used as a referential expression referring to a unique entity or kind. More precisely, a kind is definite by default as it is unique, and hence any nominal expression that denotes an indefinite entity is naturally incompatible with reference to a kind genericity. The indefinite CS behaves semantically as a predicate that picks out groups of individuals that satisfy the description content provided by the head and complement nouns in the phrase. Kind-referring NPs, however, behave in a way similar to that of proper names in rigidly referring to a specific definite kind or species (Krifka et al. 1995), and thus the indefinite CS is incompatible with this semantic rigidity.

The semantically definite CS, however, obtains the privilege of being referential, and thus can be used as object or kind-denoting expression. The data in (61) lay this point out.

(61) a. dub-u l-baandaa ʕalaa waʃak-i l-inqiraadˤ bear-Nom the-panda at close-Gen the-extinction

(The panda bear is almost extinct)

b. ʃaʤarat-u z-zaytuun-i muntaʃirat-u-n fi ʃ-ʃarq-i l-ʔawsatˤ tree-Nom the-olive-Gen common-Nom-N in the-east-Gen the-middle (The olive tree is common in the Middle East)

c. y-aʔkul-u faʔr-u l-ħaql-i l-ħubuub 3-eat-Nom mouse-Nom the-field-Gen the-grains (The field mouse eats grains)

d. y-uwaaʤih-u ʔatˤfaal-u l-ʔanaabiib-i maʃaakil-a sˤiħħiyya 3-face-Nom babies-Nom the-tube-Gen problems-Acc health (IVF babies face health problems)

The sentences (a&b) and (c&d) represent reference to a kind genericity and characteristic genericity, respectively. The pair in (a&b) uses K-level predicates, ʕalaa waʃak-i l-inqiraadˤ ‘almost extinct’ and muntaʃir ‘common’, which are compatible with kind-referring NPs or CS phrases only.

150

These sentences express reference to a kind genericity. The statement in (a) talks about the species dub-u l-baandaa ‘The Panda’ by predicating a property that can only be true of a kind, rather than an individual; no individual panda can be almost extinct. The sentence in (b) also represents a reference to a kind sentence; in the sense that the property attributed muntaʃir ‘common’ can only be predicated to a kind, but never to an individual or groups of individuals. The genericity of the sentence in (b), for instance, can be informally verbalized as follows: ‘The kind Olive Tree exhibits the property of being common’. The sentences in (c&b) do not represent reference to a kind genericity; rather both

sentences are characterizing sentences. This becomes clear if we notice that the whole sentence, rather than the generic CS per se, expresses genericity. Nonetheless, the incorporated CS subjects in both sentences are generic nominal expressions. Put differently, both sentences are characterizing sentences that express a generalization true not of an individual or a group of individuals, but rather of the kind itself.

That an indefinite CS cannot be used as a kind-referring expression can be supported by substituting indefinite CS for each minimally contrasting definite CS in each sentence in (61).

Changing the definiteness status of CS in (a&b) renders both sentences syntactically unacceptable and semantically odd. An explanation for this is that the associated predicates are K-level predicates; therefore, the incompatibility of an indefinite CS with these predicates proves that they are not kind- referring expressions. It seems that the indefinite CS fails a major diagnostic test for identifying generic NPs, or CS phrases in this case, as set forward in Krifka et al. (1995). The sentences in (c&d) do not use K-level predicates; nevertheless, replacing the definite CS phrases with indefinite ones significantly changes the meaning of both sentences. More precisely, both sentences that express a generic interpretation will entertain an episodic reading as the only reading available. While (c) expresses a generalization about field mice in general, reporting that they eat grains, its indefinite CS counterpart reports an isolated event true of existential field mice being involved in eating grains event. Similarly, (d) expresses a generalization true of IVF babies in general, that they face health

151

problems, but its indefinite CS counterpart reports a non-generic proposition about existential IVF babies being involved in health problems at a particular time and place.

As mentioned in (section 5), kind-referring NPs exhibit two peculiar characteristics that distinguish them from other nominal expressions in the language under investigation. Kind-referring NPs can associate with S-level predicates, and can occur in sentences in past tense form; nonetheless, they can remain generic. These two points are used as a diagnostic test for identifying kind-denoting expressions in MSA, as well as English and other languages. This indicates that if definite CS phrases can be inserted in past tense sentences with S-level predicates without affecting their genericity, definite CS phrases receive further support to be established as kind-denoting expressions. This is explicated in (62).

(62) a. sˤawwar-naa dubb-a l-baandaa fi l-ħadiiqat-i ʔams filmed-1.Pl bear-Acc the-panda in the-zoo-Gen yesterday (We filmed the Panda at the zoo yesterday)

b. ʃaahad-tu waθaaʔiqiyy-a-n ʕan tays-i l-ʤabal watched-1 documentary-Acc-N on goat-Gen the-mountain

(I watched a documentary on the ibex)

The predicates in (62) are S-level, and both sentences are in the past tense. However, it is clear that both sentences do not express episodic propositions true of specimens of a kind. In fact, the CS phrases in (62) are generic in that they do not refer to a particular individual panda or goat, but rather to the species Panda and Capra Ibex, respectively, being realized through indirect kind reference (Pelletier 2010b)43.

I turn to address a question relevant to the type of kind reference that the definite CS

expresses. It is known that in a CS phrase, the complement noun modifies the head noun, resulting in the head noun being more specific. This is realized in the type of kinds referred to in the sentences above. In all examples, the kinds referred to denote not whole species or kinds, but rather sub-kinds or sub-species. In (61), CS phrases are used as sub-kind-referring expressions; they denote sub-

43

See (chapter 2, section 2.1), for a discussion of indirect kind reference through representative object interpretation.

152

classes of kinds. In (a) for instance, reference is not made to the kind Bear, but to a sub-kind Panda. Similarly, in (b) reference is made not to the kind Tree, but to sub-kind Olive Tree. In (c) the kind Mouse is not the intended referent, but rather a sub-kind or class, namely the Field Mouse. The same rationale holds for IVF babies in (61.d), which is a true sub-kind of the naturally born Human Baby kind, and the Ibex in (62.b), which is a sub-kind of the kind Capra. Thus, it is plausible to suggest that definite CS phrases can be used as sub-kind-referring expressions due to the modification relation that holds between the head noun and its modifying complement, which yields in a more specific sub- kind-referring noun.