Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 217–236 | Cite as

Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations

  • Youngeun Yoon


This paper introduces an interesting class of predicates that come in pairs, so-called total and partial predicates. It will be shown that such predicates contribute to an explanation for the weak and strong interpretations of donkey sentences. This paper proposes that the phenomenon of weak and strong interpretations is real, and that whether a sentence receives the weak or the strong interpretation depends on the predicate in the nuclear scope of the sentence. It also proposes that sum individuals are calculated at some level before the nuclear scope of the sentence is processed. Once the sum individuals are calculated, it will be decided whether the nuclear scope is true of at least one element of the sum individual (weak interpretation) or true of all elements of the sum individual (strong interpretation).


Interesting Class Strong Interpretation Partial Predicate Nuclear Scope Weak Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barker, C.: 1992, ‘Proportional Ambiguity’, ms., Center for Cognitive Science, Ohio State University. Published in Proceedings of SALT III (1993).Google Scholar
  2. Gruber, J.: 1965, Studies in Lexical Relations, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington. Reprinted as J. Gruber, Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. Kadmon, N.: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  5. Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.Google Scholar
  6. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  7. Kanazawa, M.: 1994, ‘Weak and Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inferences in a Dynamic Setting’, Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 109–158.Google Scholar
  8. Kang, Y.: 1994, Weak and Strong Interpretations of Quantifiers and Definite NPs in English and Korean, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  9. Krifka, M. 1992, ‘A Framework for Focus-Sensitive Quantification’, in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of SALT II, OSUWPL vol. 40, Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, pp. 215–236.Google Scholar
  10. Krifka, M.: 1993, ‘Focus, Quantification, and Dynamic Interpretation’, ms., University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  11. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretic Approach’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 302–323.Google Scholar
  12. Moltmann, F.: 1991, ‘Mereology and the Part Relation Relevant in the Semantics of Natural Language: A Situation-Dependent Notion of Part’, ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  13. Neale, S.: 1990a, ‘Descriptive Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, The Journal of Philosophy 87(3), 113–150.Google Scholar
  14. Neale, S.: 1990b, Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  15. Partee, B.: 1984, ‘Nominal and Temporal Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 243–286.Google Scholar
  16. Rooth, M.: 1987, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 237–268.Google Scholar
  17. Rossdeutscher, A. and H. Kamp: 1992, Remarks on Lexical Structure, DRS-Construction and Lexically Driven Inferences, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youngeun Yoon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of English Language and Literature Seodaemun-Gu Daehyun-Dong 11-1Ewha Womans UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations