Definiteness across domains

这个网络涉及名词域和从句域中的限定限定词的话题。在一些语言中，用于标记限定性的限定词也可以用在小句结尾的位置上，例如，在分裂的背景部分，比较(1a)和(1b)，来自阿肯语。(1)a.pánóSá-àyɛ́‎。B.Kofi nàɔ̀‎-Sá-àyɛ́‎nó。这个网络的主要关注点是确定限定词的构成语义，特别是在研究较少的语言中。主要的研究问题是：-如何在语言中表达确定性？-从跨语言的角度来看，名词和从句领域的确定性描述的含义和用途是什么？-在名词性和从句领域是否可能对确定性描述进行统一分析？为了解决这些问题，该网络专注于三个工作包：WP1专注于不同类型的确定性(例如，回指/强烈的熟悉性与对固有独特个体的指代)以不同方式表达的语言(例如，Schwarz 2019)：使用两个不同的限定词或限定词与裸露的名词。主要问题是有哪些确定性，以及如何对它们进行刻画和分析？WP2调查了光单数计数名词在语言中的意义贡献，因为它们(似乎)表达了确定性。这是真正的确定性吗？如果是，这种解读是如何实现的(特别是与换字账户有关，例如Chierchia 1998，Dayal 2004)？WP3：集中在小句末尾限定词的分布、意义和使用上，如nóin(1b)(Duah，Renans&GRubic 2020)。如何将这些环境归类为确定的，以及小句尾部限定词与名词域中的对应环境有何关系？对于这些WP中的每一个，网络成员中的一些人对这些结构的组成语义/句法、它们的确切意义贡献以及它们与其他(如不定或指示)表达的相互作用表达了相反的观点。因此，我们的目标是找到他们的账户之间的可测试差异，并在实验和/或实地考察中合作探索这些差异。这反过来将导致协作成果，如会议和期刊出版物、实地/实验手册，以及可能的进一步协作赠款申请。我们网络的大多数成员是年轻的研究人员(主要是博士后)。他们是从事理论语义和句法工作的研究人员，从事确定性研究的田野工作者和类型学家。WP3的研究相对较少，因此，我们注意包括研究带有从句限定词的语言的网络成员(例如，Akan、Ga、Ewe(Kua)、Kusaal、Dagaare、Dagbani、Buli(Gur))。

This network addresses the topic of definite determiners in the nominal and clausal domain. In some languages, determiners used to mark definiteness are also found in clause-final position, e.g., in the backgrounded part of clefts, compare (1a) to (1b), from Akan.(1) a. Pàpá nó sá-àyɛ́‎. b. Kofi nà ɔ̀‎-sá-àyɛ́‎ nó. man def dance-pst Kofi prt 3sg-dance-pst def `The man danced.‘ ‘It was Kofi who danced.’The main focus of the network is on the compositional semantics of definite determiners, crosslinguistically, especially in under-researched languages. The main research questions are:-How is definiteness expressed across languages?- What is the meaning and use of definite descriptions in the nominal and clausal domain in a crosslinguistic perspective?- Is a unified analysis of definite descriptions in the nominal and clausal domain possible?In order to address these questions, the network focuses on three work packages:WP1 focuses on languages where different kinds of definiteness (e.g. anaphoricity/strong familiarity vs. reference to inherently unique individuals) are expressed differently (e.g.,Schwarz 2019): with two different determiners or a determiner vs. a bare noun. The main question is what kinds of definiteness are there and how can they be characterized and analyzed?WP2 investigates the meaning contribution of bare singular count nouns in languages where they (appear to) express definiteness. Is this true definiteness, and if yes, how is this reading achieved (relating this, in particular, to typeshifting accounts, e.g., Chierchia 1998, Dayal 2004)?WP3: concentrates on the distribution, meaning and use of clause-final definite determiners such as nó in (1b) (Duah, Renans & Grubic 2020). In which way can these environments be classified as definite, and how is the clause-final determiner related to its counterpart in the nominal domain?For each of these WPs, some of the network members have expressed opposing views on the compositional semantics/syntax of these constructions, their exact meaning contribution, or their interaction with other (e.g. indefinite or demonstrative) expressions. We, therefore, aim to find testable differences between their accounts and to collaboratively explore them in experiments and/or fieldwork. This in turn will lead to collaborative output such as conference and journal publications, field/experimental manuals and and possibly further collaborative grant applications.Most members of our network are younger researchers (mostly Post-Docs). They are researchers doing theoretical semantic and syntactic work, fieldworkers, and typologists working on definiteness. WP3 is comparatively under-researched and for this reason we have taken care to include network members working on languages with clausal determiners (e.g., Akan, Ga, Ewe (Kwa), Kusaal, Dagaare, Dagbani, Buli (Gur)).