Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 409–466 | Cite as

Demonstratives as individual concepts

  • Paul Elbourne
Research Article

Abstract

Using a version of situation semantics, this article argues that bare and complex demonstratives are interpreted as individual concepts.

Keywords

Demonstratives Individual concepts Pronouns Situation semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, S. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni M. (2005) Individual concepts in modal predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 34: 1–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altshuler D. (2007) WCO, ACD and what they reveal about complex demonstratives. Natural Language Semantics 15: 265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin J.L. (1961) Truth. In: Urmson J.O., Warnock G.J. (eds) Philosophical papers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 117–133Google Scholar
  5. Bach E. (1970) Problominalization. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 121–122Google Scholar
  6. Barwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Bäuerle R. (1983) Pragmatisch-semantische Aspekte der NP-Interpretation. In: Faust M., Harweg R., Lehfeldt W., Wienold G. (eds) Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Textlinguistik. Festschrift für Peter Hartmann. Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, pp 121–131Google Scholar
  8. Berman S. (1987) Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In: Blevins J., Vainikka A. (eds) Studies in semantics. Amherst, GLSA, pp 46–68Google Scholar
  9. Borg E. (2000) Complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 97: 229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braun D. (1994) Structured characters and complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 74: 193–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchanan, R. (2002). Understanding complex demonstratives. Ms.Google Scholar
  12. Buchanan R., Ostertag G. (2005) Has the problem of incompleteness rested on a mistake?. Mind 114: 889–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Büring D. (2004) Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12: 23–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Büring D. (2005) Binding theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Chierchia G. (1995) Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Chomsky N. (1993) A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale K., Keyser S.J. (eds) The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–52Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper R. (1979) The interpretation of pronouns. In: Heny F., Schnelle H. (eds) Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the Third Gröningen Round Table. Academic Press, New York, pp 61–92Google Scholar
  21. Cresswell M. (1985) Structured meanings. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Edelberg W. (1994) Propositions, circumstances, objects. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23: 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elbourne P. (2001a) E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9: 241–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elbourne, P. (2001b). On the semantics of pronouns and definite articles. In L. Bar-el & K. Megerdoomian (Eds.), WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 164–177). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  26. Elbourne, P. (2003). Indistinguishable participants. In P. Dekker & R. van Rooij (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 105–110). Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Elbourne P. (2005a) On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elbourne P. (2005b) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Elbourne, P. (2008). The existence entailments of definite descriptions. Ms.Google Scholar
  30. Farkas D. (1997) Evaluation indices and scope. In: Szabolcsi A. (eds) Ways of scope taking. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 183–215Google Scholar
  31. von Fintel K. (1993) Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics 1: 123–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  33. von Fintel K. (2004) Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 315–341Google Scholar
  34. Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Fox D. (2002) Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frege G. (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50Google Scholar
  37. Glanzberg M., Siegel S. (2006) Presupposition and policing in complex demonstratives. Noûs 40: 1–42Google Scholar
  38. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1990) Dynamic Montague Grammar. In: Kálmán L., Pólos L. (eds) Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp 3–48Google Scholar
  39. Grosz B., Joshi A., Weinstein S. (1995) Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21: 203–225Google Scholar
  40. Harley H. (2002) WCO, ACD, and QR of DPs. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 659–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  42. Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heim I. (1991) Artikel und Definitheit. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp 487–535Google Scholar
  44. Heim, I. (1993). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. University of Tübingen Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft working paper series (SfS-Report-07-93).Google Scholar
  45. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Heim, I., Kratzer, A., & von Fintel, K. (1998). Introduction to intensional semantics. Class notes, MIT.Google Scholar
  47. Higginbotham, J., & May, R. (1981). Crossing, markedness, pragmatics. In Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore de Pisa.Google Scholar
  48. Hindley J.R., Seldin J.P. (1986) Introduction to combinators and λ-calculus. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacobson, P. (1977). The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  50. Jacobson, P. (1991). Bach-Peters sentences in a variable-free semantics. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 283–302). Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  51. Jacobson P. (2000) Paycheck pronouns, Bach-Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 77–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Johnson K., Lepore E. (2002) Does syntax reveal semantics? A case study of complex demonstratives. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 17–41Google Scholar
  53. Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  54. Kaplan D. (1989a) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563Google Scholar
  55. Kaplan D. (1989b) Afterthoughts. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 565–614Google Scholar
  56. Karttunen L. (1971) Definite descriptions with crossing coreference. Foundations of Language 7: 157–182Google Scholar
  57. Kayne R. (1984) Connectedness and binary branching. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  58. Keenan E. (1972) On semantically based grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 413–461Google Scholar
  59. King J. (2001) Complex demonstratives. MIT Press, A quantificational account. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Kitagawa, Y. (1986). Subjects in Japanese and English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  61. Kratzer A. (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kratzer, A. (2004). Covert quantifier restrictions in natural languages. Ms.Google Scholar
  63. Kripke S. (1972) Naming and necessity. In: Davidson D., Harman G. (eds) Semantics of natural languages. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 253–355Google Scholar
  64. Kripke S. (1979) Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. In: French P.A., Uehling T., Wettstein H. (eds) Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 6–27Google Scholar
  65. Ladusaw, W. (1979).Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  66. Larson R., Segal G. (1995) Knowledge of meaning. An introduction to semantic theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Lasnik H., Stowell T. (1991) Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687–720Google Scholar
  68. Lewis D. (1968) Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic. Journal of Philosophy 65: 113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Link G. (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 302–323Google Scholar
  70. Longobardi G. (1994) Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665Google Scholar
  71. May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. May R. (1985) Logical form. Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  73. May R. (1989) Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 387–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  75. Neale S. (1993) Term limits. In: Tomberlin J.E. (eds) Philosophical perspectives 7: Logic and language. Atascadero, Ridgeview Publishing, pp 89–123Google Scholar
  76. Neale S. (2005a) A century later. Mind 114: 809–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Neale S. (2005b) Pragmatism and binding. In: Szabó Z.G. (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 165–285Google Scholar
  78. Neale S. (2007) Heavy hands and scene-reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3: 77–130Google Scholar
  79. Nunberg G. (1979) The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 143–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nunberg G. (1993) Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nunberg G. (2004) Descriptive indexicals and indexical descriptions. In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 261–279Google Scholar
  82. Partee B., Rooth M. (1983) Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 362–383Google Scholar
  83. Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Postal P. (1966) On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In: Dinneen F. (eds) Report on the seventeenth annual round table meeting on linguistics and language studies. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 177–206Google Scholar
  85. Quine W.V.O. (1969) Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  86. Recanati F. (1993) Direct reference. Blackwell, From language to thought. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  87. Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  88. Recanati F. (2005) Deixis and anaphora. In: (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 286–316Google Scholar
  89. Roberts C. (2002) Demonstratives as definites. In: Deemter K., Kibble R. (eds) Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation. CSLI Press, Stanford, pp 89–136Google Scholar
  90. Roberts C. (2003) Uniqueness in definite Noun Phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Roberts C. (2004) Pronouns as definites. In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 503–543Google Scholar
  92. Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Seligman J., Moss L. (1997) Situation theory. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) The handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam/Cambridge, pp 239–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Soames S. (1987) Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics 15: 47–87Google Scholar
  97. Sperber D., Wilson D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  98. Stanley J. (2002) Review of King 2001. The Philosophical Review 111: 605–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Stockwell R., Schachter P., Partee B.H. (1973) The major syntactic structures of English. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  100. Strawson P. (1950) On referring. Mind 59: 320–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Takahashi, E., Conroy, A., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2006). Early mastery of constraints on binding and coreference. Ms.Google Scholar
  102. Taylor B. (1980) Truth-theory for indexical languages. In: Platts M. (eds) Reference, truth and reality. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp 182–198Google Scholar
  103. Thornton R., Wexler K. (1999) Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  104. Uriagereka J. (1995) Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123Google Scholar
  105. van Benthem J. (1995) Language in action. Categories, lambdas and dynamic logic. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  106. van Eijck J., Kamp H. (1997) Representing discourse in context. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam/Cambridge, pp 179–237Google Scholar
  107. Wolter, L. (2006). That’s that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsQueen Mary, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations