Abstract
This paper reports on an experimental investigation of the scope of English a indefinites and a certain indefinites. Three experiments test whether native English speakers allow indefinites to scope out of syntactic islands, and to take intermediate as well as widest scope. The experimental findings indicate that a indefinites and a certain indefinites have different ranges of interpretations available to them. Experiment 1 shows that a certain indefinites, unlike a indefinites, cannot be interpreted in the scope of an intensional operator, and further shows that functional readings are available to a certain indefinites but not to a indefinites. Experiment 2 focuses on the availability of long-distance readings of indefinites out of scope islands, and shows that the most accessible reading for a certain indefinites is the widest-scope reading, while the most accessible reading for a indefinites is the narrow-scope reading. Experiment 3 shows that modification of an a indefinite by a relative clause does not facilitate long-distance readings, as long as it does not restrict the domain to a singleton set. Overall, these findings are consistent with the proposal of Schwarz (Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILCC, University of Amsterdam, 192–197, 2001) that a certain indefinites and a indefinites are derived by different semantic mechanisms. The behavior of a certain indefinites is shown to be consistent with the contextually determined choice function approach Kratzer (Events in grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 165–196, 1998) and the singleton indefinite approach Schwarzschild (J Semant 19:289–314, 2002). In contrast, a indefinites are most compatible with a purely quantificational approach, contra much recent theoretical literature. These findings highlight the value of conducting experimental studies testing the predictions of semantic theories.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abusch D. (1994) The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83–135
Abusch, D., and M. Rooth. 1997. Epistemic NP modifiers. In Proceedings of SALT 7, ed. R. Hendrik et al., 1–27. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Alonso-Ovalle, L., and P. Menéndez-Benito. 2007. Another look at indefinite islands. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston and University of Goettingen. Under review. http://alonso-ovalle.net/wp-content/uploads/alonso-menendez2007.pdf.
Anderson, C. 2004. The Structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. PhD diss., Northwestern University.
Breheny, R. 2003. Exceptional-scope indefinites and domain restriction. In Proceedings of the Conference ‘sub 7 – Sinn und Bedeutung’. 7th Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, ed. M. Weisgerber, Number 114 in Konstanzer Arbeitspapiere Linguistik, 38–52. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz.
Chierchia, G. 2001. A puzzle about indefinites. In Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora, and aspect, ed. C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, and M.T. Guasti, 51–89. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
Cresti, D. Indefinite topics. PhD diss., MIT.
Davidson D. (1984) Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Endriss, C. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 86. Berlin: Springer.
Farkas, D. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Proceedings of CLS 7, ed. R. Hendrik et al., 59–66. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.
Farkas, D. 2002. Varieties of indefinites. In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. B. Jackson, 58–83. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Fodor J., Sag I. (1982) Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5: 355–398
Geurts, B. 2002. Indefinites, presupposition, and scope. In Presuppositions and discourse, ed. R. Bäuerle and T. Zimmermann. Oxford: Elsevier.
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Gualmini A., Hulsey S., Hacquard V., Fox D. (2008) The Question-Answer Requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics, 16: 205–237
Gutiérrez-Rexach J. (2001) The semantics of Spanish plural existential determiners and the dynamics of judgment types. Probus 13: 113–154
Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden
Hintikka J. (1986) The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 331–336
Iatridou, S., and I. Sichel. 2008. NegDPs and scope diminishment: Some basic patterns. In Proceedings of NELS 38. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Ionin T. (2006) This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234
Ionin, T. 2008. An experimental investigation of the semantics and pragmatics of specificity. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. N. Abner and J. Bishop, 229–237. Somerville, MA.: Cascadilla Press.
Ionin, T. Under Review. An experimental study on the scope of (un)modified indefinites. Submitted to a special issue of the International Review of Pragmatics.
Ioup, G. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. In Syntax and semantics, ed. J. P. Kimball, Vol. 4, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.
King J. (1988) Are indefinite descriptions ambiguous?. Philosophical Studies 53: 417–440
Kluender, R. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Syntax and semantics Vol. 29: The limits of syntax, ed. P. Culicover and L. McNally, 241–279. New York: Elsevier.
Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kratzer, A., and J. Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate phrases: The view from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Kurtzman H.S., MacDonald M.C. (1993) Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48: 243–279
Lyons C. (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Martí, L. 2005. Donald Duck is back and he speaks Spanish. In Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. P. Dekker and M. Franke, 143–148. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
Martí L. (2007) Restoring indefinites to normalcy: An experimental study on the scope of Spanish algunos. Journal of Semantics 24: 1–25
Matthewson L. (1999) On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134
May, R. 1977. The grammar of quantification. PhD diss., MIT.
Meyer M.-C., Sauerland U. (2009) A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection: A rejoinder to Büring and Hartmann and to Reis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 139–150
Montague, R. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Formal Philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, ed. R. Thomason, 247–270. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Musolino, J. 1998. Universal Grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge. PhD diss., University of Maryland.
Portner P. (2002) Topicality and (non)-specificity in Mandarin. Journal of Semantics, 19: 275–287
Portner P., Yabushita K. (2001) Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics. Journal of Semantics 18: 221–297
Prince E. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In Elements of Discourse Understanding, ed. A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber and I.A. Sag, 231–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pylkkänen, L., and B. McElree. 2006. The syntax-semantics interface: on-line composition of sentence meaning. In Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed.), ed. M. Traxler and M.A. Gernsbacher, 537–577. New York: Elsevier.
Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397
Ruys, E.G. 1992. The scope of indefinites. PhD diss, Utrecht University.
Schwarz, B. 2001. Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. R. van Rooy and M. Stokhof, 192–197. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
Schwarzschild R. (2002) Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19: 289–314
Sprouse J. (2008) The differential sensitivity of acceptability judgments to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 686–694
Tunstall, S.L. 1998. The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Villalta E. (2003) The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Journal of Semantics 20: 115–162
Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467
Winter Y. (2001) Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Winter Y. (2005) On some problems of (in)definiteness in flexible semantics. Lingua 115: 767–786
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic Supplementary Material
The Below is the Electronic Supplementary Material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ionin, T. The scope of indefinites: an experimental investigation. Nat Lang Semantics 18, 295–350 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9057-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9057-3