Definite article use with generic reference in German: an empirical study

Abstract

This study is concerned with the distribution of the definite article in German with plural nominals that have a generic reading. In Standard German, genericity is typically expressed by bare nouns (Tiger sind gefährlich 'Tigers are dangerous'). Many researchers have claimed that there is variation in article use in the expression of generic reference in German (e.g., Brugger 1993;Longobardi 1994;Krifka et al. 1995;Chierchia 1998;Dayal 2004;Oosterhof 2008), but very little empirical evidence has been provided to support this claim. Besides filling this research gap, we investigate which factors influence the use of articles in plural subjects with generic reference. In doing so, we include linguistic factors (kind-level vs. individual-level predicates) as well as sociolinguistic factors (age and regional background). Results show that with generic plural subjects definite articles are optional but bare subjects are preferred; definite subjects are accepted more often with kind-level predicates than with individuallevel predicates.

(The) polar bears are pink. How (the) Germans interpret (the) definite articles in plural subject DPs

“…From an empirical and methodological point of view, we need more evidence for the above claims about German. The study by Barton et al (2015) seems to support the view that German has started to employ the definite strategy, but, as the authors themselves noted, their results might have been compromised by the comparatively heterogeneous participant group with small groups per region. A different approach may shed new light on earlier findings, and establish new paradigms for researching genericity.…”

“…The motivation for comparing speakers from different regions was that comparable studies looking into definite article use with proper names (e.g., Maria 'Mary' vs. die Maria 'the Mary') had demonstrated that speakers in the Southern and Central West (Stuttgart, Mainz, Cologne) were more inclined to accept articles in these contexts (e.g., Bellmann 1990). The results of Barton et al (2015) indicated that native German speakers accepted bare subject nominals 99.5% of the time, while also accepting definite plural articles 67.7% of the time. Moreover, Barton et al confirmed that definite subjects were accepted more often with kind-level predicates than with individual-level predicates: the presence vs. absence of a linguistic cue did not have a significant effect.…”

“…The situation in German appears to be different from English, as German allows generic readings more readily than English. We are aware of only one empirical study testing generic subject NPs with adults: Barton, Kolb and Kupisch (2015) asked monolingual German speakers to judge contextualized sentences which contained either a definite or a bare NP (e.g., Sheep are white vs. The sheep are white).…”

“…In addition, the context Table 1 Acceptance of definite marked plural subjects with kind-level (e.g. are extinct) and individuallevel (= characterizing) statements (Adapted from Barton et al 2015) Hamburg (N) Berlin ( explicitly biased speakers towards interpreting definites as generic. What we do not know, therefore, is whether speakers of German would interpret definite plural DPs as generic in the absence of a verbal context.…”

Discovery of Discourse-Related Language Contrasts through Alignment Discrepancies in English-German Translation

“…German plural generics can be used both as definite nominal phrases and as bare nouns, whereas definite plurals in English cannot be interpreted generically. However, Barton et al (2015) provide the only empirical analysis known to us, but concentrate on plural generics only. We believe that our approach creates a good foundation (and resource) for a more detailed quantitative analysis of such cases.…”