Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 355–398

Referential and quantificational indefinites

  • Janet Dean Fodor
  • Ivan A. Sag
Article

Conclusion

The formal semantics that we have proposed for definite and indefinite descriptions analyzes them both as variable-binding operators and as referring terms. It is the referential analysis which makes it possible to account for the facts outlined in Section 2, e.g. for the purely ‘instrumental’ role of the descriptive content; for the appearance of unusually wide scope readings relative to other quantifiers, higher predicates, and island boundaries; for the fact that the island-escaping readings are always equivalent to maximally wide scope quantifiers; and for the appearance of violations of the identity conditions on variables in deleted constituents. We would emphasize that this is not a random collection of observations. They cohere naturally with each other, and with facts about other phrases that are unambigously referential.

We conceded at the outset of this paper that the referential use of an indefinite noun phrase does not, by itself, motivate the postulation of a referential interpretation. Our argument has been that the behavior of indefinites in complex sentences cannot be economically described, and certainly cannot be explained, unless a referential interpretation is assumed. It could be accounted for in pragmatic terms only if the whole theory of scope relations and of conditions on deletion could be eliminated from the semantics and incorporated into a purely pragmatic theory. But this seems unlikely.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Barwise, J.: 1981, ‘Scenes and Other Situations’, Journal of Philosophy LXXVIII, 369–397.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and R.Cooper: 1981a, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Languages’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J. and J.Perry: 1981, ‘Semantic Innocence and Uncompromising Situations’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy VI, 387–403.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise, J. and I. A.Sag: 1980, Stanford Working Papers in Semantics, Vol. 1 (Stanford University, California).Google Scholar
  5. Chastain, C.: 1975, ‘Reference and Context’, in K.Gunderson (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge, Vol. 7 of the Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (University of Minnesota press, Minneapolis).Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N.: 1975, ‘Questions of Form and Interpretation’, Linguistic Analysis 1, 75–109.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, R.: 1979, ‘Variable Binding and Relative Clauses’, in F.Guenthner and S. J.Schmidt (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages (Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland).Google Scholar
  8. Cushing, S.: 1976, The Formal Semantics of Quantification (doctoral dissertation, UCLA, reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club).Google Scholar
  9. Dennett, D. C.: 1981, ‘Beyond Belief’, in A.Woodfield (ed.), Thought and Object (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England).Google Scholar
  10. Donnellan, K.: 1966, ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Review 75, 281–304.Google Scholar
  11. Donnellan, K.: 1968, ‘Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again’, Philosophical Review 77, 203–215.Google Scholar
  12. Enç, M.: 1981, ‘Tense Without Scope: An Analysis of Nouns As Indexicals’, (University of Wisconsin, Madison).Google Scholar
  13. Fodor, J. D.: 1970, The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT (Published by Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1979).Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, J. D.: 1982, ‘The Mental Representation of Quantifiers’, in S.Peters and E.Saarinen (eds.), Processes, Beliefs and Questions (Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland).Google Scholar
  15. Hilbert, D. and P.Bernays: 1939, Grundlagen der Mathematik, Vol. II (Springer, Berlin).Google Scholar
  16. Jespersen, V.: 1931, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part IV, Syntax, Third Volume (Heidelberg, Carl Winters Universitätsbuch handlung).Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, D.: (ms.), ‘Demonstratives’ (unpublished manuscript, UCLA).Google Scholar
  18. Kroch, A.: 1974, The Semantics of Scope in English, Ph.D. dissertatation, MIT (Published by Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1979).Google Scholar
  19. Lakoff, G.: 1970, ‘Repartee’, Foundations of Language 7, 389–422.Google Scholar
  20. May, R.: 1977, The Grammar of Quantification, doctoral dissertation, MIT (reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club).Google Scholar
  21. Morgan, J.: 1973, Presuppostion and the Representation of Meaning, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Chicago).Google Scholar
  22. Nunberg, G.: 1977, The Pragmatics of Reference, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, C.U.N.Y. Graduate Center (distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club).Google Scholar
  23. Partee, B. H.: 1972, ‘Opacity, Coreference, and Pronouns’, in D.Davidson and G.Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland).Google Scholar
  24. Perry, J.: 1980, ‘A Problem About Continued Belief’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61, 317–332.Google Scholar
  25. Postal, P. M.: 1974, ‘On Certain Ambiguities’, Linguistic Inquiry 5, 367–424.Google Scholar
  26. Prince, E.: 1981, ‘On the Inferencing of Indefinite-this NP's’, in A.Joshi, I. A.Sag and B. L.Webber (eds.), Linguistic Structure and Discourse Setting (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England).Google Scholar
  27. Reichenbach, H.: 1947, Elements of Symbolic Logic, (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
  28. Rodman, R.: 1976, ‘Scope Phenomena, ‘Movement Transformations’ and Montague Grammar’, in B. H.Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar (Academic Press, New York), pp. 165–176.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W. V. O.: 1966, ‘Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes’, in W. V. O. Quine, Ways of Paradox (Random House, New York).Google Scholar
  30. Sadock, J.: 1975, ‘The Soft Interpretive Underbelly of Generative Semantics’, in Cole, P. and J.Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts, Vo. 3 of the Syntax and Semantics series (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
  31. Sag. I. A.: 1976a, ‘A Logical Theory of Verb Phrase Deletion’, in S. Mufwene et al. (eds.), Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (University of Chicago).Google Scholar
  32. Sag, I. A.: 1976b, Deletion and Logical Form, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT (Published by Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1980).Google Scholar
  33. Sag, I. A.: 1980, ‘Formal Semantics and Extralinguistic Context’, in P.Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Vol. 13 of the Syntax and Semantics series (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
  34. Sag, I. A.: 1981, ‘Partial Variable Assignment Functions, Verb Phrase Ellipsis, and the Dispensability of Logical Form’, unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  35. Stern, J.: 1970, Metaphor as Demonstrative: A Formal Semantics for Demonstratives and Metaphors, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Columbia University).Google Scholar
  36. Strawson, P. F.: 1964, ‘Identifying Reference and Truth-values’, Theoria 30, 96–118.Google Scholar
  37. Thompson, S. A.: 1971, ‘The Deep Structure of Relative Clauses’, in C. J.Fillmore and D. T.Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York).Google Scholar
  38. Vanlehn, K.: 1978, ‘Determining the Scope of English Quantifiers, (Technical report, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT).Google Scholar
  39. Williams, E.: 1977, ‘Discourse and Logical Form’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–140.Google Scholar
  40. Wilson, G.: 1978, ‘On Definite and Indefinite Descriptions’, Philosophical Review LXXXVII, 48–76.Google Scholar
  41. Wittgenstein, L.: 1953, Philosophical Investigations, transl. by G. E. M. Anscombe (Blackwell, Oxford).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Co 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Dean Fodor
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ivan A. Sag
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Stanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations