Schulpen, M. & Aguilar-Guevara, A.
UiL-OTS, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Sentences containing weak definites typically carry more information than what is conveyed by the straightforward composition of their constituents (e.g. Mary went to the store = Mary went to a store + Mary did some shopping). We show that this meaning enrichment is part of the asserted meaning of sentences rather than an implicature or a presupposition. We support this claim with the findings of a series of studies. Experiment1 tests sloppy readings for weak and regular definites and their modified counterparts in VP-ellipsis constructions in order to find the most contrasting set of weak and regular definites in Dutch and the adjectives that best block weak readings of definites. Experiment2 and Experiment3 identify the most prototypical activities that speakers associate with the nouns used in Experiment 1, which refer to locations, and with another set of nouns that refer to agents. Experiment4 tests the participants’ interpretation of sentences describing an agent going to a location referred to by a weak definite (1), a regular definite (2) or their modified counterparts:
(1) De postbode ging naar de (grote) supermarkt.
(The mailman went to the (big) supermarket).
(2) De postbode ging naar het (grote) kasteel.
(The mailman went to the (big) castle).
Participants choose from two pictures the one best matching their interpretation of the corresponding sentence and grade how confident they are on their answer. One of the pictures depicts an ‘agent reason’ for going to the location (e.g. to deliver a package), whereas the other shows a ‘location reason’ (e.g. to do some shopping). We predict that if meaning enrichment is part of the asserted meaning of sentences with weak definites, these will trigger more preference for the latter kind of picture than sentences with regular and modified definites.