Abstract
This paper is dedicated to the French specificity marker précis, one of the possible translations of the English specificity marker particular. Firstly, it is shown that un N précis (i) does not tolerate singleton domains, (ii) presents as non accidental the fact that it is the referent, and (presumably) not the alternative elements of the domain, which satisfies the verbal predicate and (iii) tends to be focused and to background the rest of the sentence. On these three points, précis differs from the other specificity marker certain. Secondly, it is suggested that the different uses of un certain N differentiated by Houghton (2000) are different ways to justify the fact the speaker indicates that a second description of the referent exists without giving it (Jayez and Tovena, 2002). Thirdly, it is shown that neither un certain N nor un N précis are acceptable in certain kinds of nominal exclamative sentences (cf. ??Oh! un certain paquet! ‘Oh! A certain package!’, ??Oh! un paquet prcis! ‘Oh! A particular package!). It is claimed that the unacceptability of un certain N in these exclamative nominal sentences comes from the impossibility to use this NP as a predicate nominal, while the one generated by un N précis in enss is the result of a clash between two incompatible information structures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The term ‘anti-singleton indefinite’ is borrowed from Alonso-Ovalle and Menéndez-Benito (2010).
- 2.
However, précis becomes compatible with the definite once modified by a restrictive clause, cf. the example below.
I do not have an explanation for this contrast.
- 3.
The verb select is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
- 4.
On backgrounding and the difference with presupposing, I refer to Geurts (2005).
- 5.
On the scopal properties of certain, I refer the reader to the cited works of Jayez and Tovena as well as Yanovich (this volume).
- 6.
Which means that one may assume that in these nominal sentences, the relation implicated by un N précis takes as one of its argument a sometimes implicit predicate B, i.e. something like be present there. The predicate B which serves as a second term for the causal relation can also be a locative adjunct, like au bar in the example (8). Note that ceteris paribus, assertive nominal sentences with précis are more difficult to build without the help of such an adjunct than with certain. This confirms that précis, but not certain, conveys a causal relation between two properties.
- 7.
On descriptions which are simultaneously used referentially and attributively, see also Nunberg (2004). Note that rigid designators like definite NPs and proper names are not attributive in Oh exclamatives. For instance, (i) does not express that the speaker is surprised to perceive the man under the guise man with the red suit. It could be that the description provided by the NPs is totally irrelevant for the surprise. In fact, (i) could serve exactly the same purpose as (ii) (if we assume that (i) and (ii) refer to the same entity).
-
(i.)
Oh 1! L’homme au costume rouge!‘Oh! The man with the red suit!’
-
(ii.)
Oh 1! Le remplaçant de l’épicier!‘Oh! The grocer’s substitute!’
My claim about Oh exclamatives is restricted to NPs which are not rigid designators.
-
(i.)
- 8.
- 9.
As already mentioned, in the case of nominal sentences, the implicit predicate B corresponds to something like to be here or even simply here.
References
Alonso-Ovalle, L., and P. Menéndez-Benito. 2010. Modal indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 18: 1–31.
Alonso-Ovalle, L., P. Menéndez-Benito, and F. Schwarz. (to appear). Maximize presupposition and two types of definite competitors. In Proceedings of NELS 39. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
Corblin, F. 1987. Indéfini, défini et démonstratif : constructions linguistiques de la référence. Genève: Droz.
Ebert, C., C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer (this volume). The interpretation of the german specificity markers bestimmt and gewiss. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 31–74. Dordrecht: Springer.
Enç, M. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.
Farkas, D. 2002. Varieties of indefinites. In Proceedings of Salt 12, ed. B. Jackson, 59–83. Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Fodor, J., and I. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355-398.
Geurts, B. 2005. Specific indefinites, presupposition, and scope. In Presuppositions and discourse. Essays offered to Hans Kamp, Current research in semantics/pragmatics interface, ed. R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle, and E. Zimmermann. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Heim, I. 1991. Artikel und definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch des zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. A. von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hintikka, J. 1986. The semantics of “a certain”. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 331–336.
Houghton, D. 2000. Something about anything. A semantic study of a, any, the and certain . Ph.D. thesis: State University of New York at Buffalo.
Jayez, J., and L. Tovena. 2002. Determiners and uncertainty. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic conference XII, UCSD and San Diego University, ed. B. Jackson. Cornell: CLC Publications.
Jayez, J., and L. Tovena. 2006a. Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics 23: 217–250.
Jayez, J., and L. Tovena. 2006b. Indéfinis et identification. In Indéfini et Prédication, ed. F. Corblin, S. Ferrando, and L. Kupferman, 67–80. Paris: Presses universitaires de la Sorbonne.
Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht/Boston/Londres: Kluwer Academic Press.
Martin, R. 1987. Langage et croyance: Les “univers de croyance” dans la théorie sémantique. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Merin, A. 1999. Information, relevance, and social decisionmaking: some principles and results of decision-theoretic semantics. In Logic, language and computation, vol. 2, ed. L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Martin, F. 2005. Les indéfinis spécifiques un certain N et un N bien prcis. Travaux de linguistique 50(1): 151–168. Déterminants indéfinis en français.
Nunberg, G. 2004. Descriptive indexicals and indexical descriptions. In Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vinet, M.-T. 1991. French non verbal exclamative constructions. Probus 3/1: 77–100.
Vlachou, E. 2007. Free choice in and out of context: Semantics and distribution of French, Greek and English free choice items. Ph.D. thesis: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.
Yanovich, I. (this volume). Certain presuppositions and some intermediate readings, and vice versa. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 105–122. Dordrecht: Springer.
Zamparelli, R. 2003. On certain/specific phenomena. Talk given to the Worskhop Specific Indefinites, Esslli03, Vienna.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Christopher Piñón for stimulating discussions about the distribution of indefinites in exclamatives. I also thank the audiences of the Funny Indefinites Worshop (especially Jacques Jayez and Lucia Tovena) and the Quantifier Modification Workshop at Esslli 2007 for valuable discussions, as well as Cornelia Ebert for her comments on a previous draft of this paper. This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 732, Teilprojekt B5).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martin, F. (2013). Specificity Markers and Nominal Exclamatives in French. In: Ebert, C., Hinterwimmer, S. (eds) Different Kinds of Specificity Across Languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 92. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5310-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5310-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5309-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5310-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)