Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 1–50 | Cite as

Existentials, predication, and modification

Research Article

Abstract

This paper offers a new semantic theory of existentials (sentences of the form There be NPpivotXPcoda) in which pivots are (second order) predicates and codas are modifiers. The theory retains the analysis of pivots as denoting generalized quantifiers (Barwise and Cooper 1981; Keenan 1987), but departs from previous analyses in analyzing codas as contextual modifiers on a par with temporal/locative frame adverbials. Existing analyses universally assume that pivots are arguments of some predicate, and that codas are main or secondary predicates. It is shown that these analyses cannot account for the behavior of codas with quantifiers and for the interaction of multiple codas, both of which receive a simple treatment on the proposed theory. The assimilation of codas to frame adverbials explains several semantic properties which have not been analyzed in the semantic literature, and that distinguish existentials from their copular counterparts. Furthermore, it highlights important properties of the semantics of modification and its relation to predication.

Keywords

Semantics of existential constructions Predication Modification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Artstein R. (2005) Quantificational arguments in temporal adjunct clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(5): 541–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babby L.H. (1980) Existential sentences and negation in Russian. Ann Arbor, MI, Karoma PublishersGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker C., Jacobson P. (2007) Direct compositionality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer W. (1993) Maori. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaver, D., Francez, I., & Levinson, D. (2006). Bad subject! (non)-canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT XV. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Bolinger D. (1967) Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18(1): 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borschev, V., & Partee, B. (2001). The Russian genitive of negation in existentials sentences: The role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. In E. Hajičová, P. Sgall, J. Hana, & T. Hoskovec (Eds.), Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague (Vol. 4, pp. 185–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Caponigro, I., & Pearl, L. (2008). Silent prepositions: Evidence from free relatives. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlaèil, B. Gehrke, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), The syntax and semantics of spatial P. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia G. (1985) Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 417–443Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia G. (1992) Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(2): 111–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chierchia G. (1998) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chierchia G., Turner R. (1988) Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(3): 261–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Chung S., Ladusaw W.A. (2004) Restriction and saturation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Condoravdi, C. (2008). Punctual until as a scalar NPI. In The nature of the word: Essays in honor of Paul Kiparksy (pp. 631–655). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Condoravdi C., Gawron J.M. (1996) The context-dependency of implicit arguments. In: Kanazawa M., Piñón C., de Swart H. (eds) Quantifiers, deduction and context. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  18. Dayal V. (1998) ANY as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(5): 433–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Swart H. (1996) Meaning and use of not until. Journal of Semantics 13(3): 221–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Declerck, R. (1995). The problem of not . . . until. Linguistics (33), 51–98.Google Scholar
  21. Doron, E. (1983). Verbless predicates in Hebrew. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  22. Dowty D.R. (1979) Word meaning and montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in montague’s PTQ. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Dowty D. (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Emonds J. (1976) A transformational approach to English syntax. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Erteschik Shir N. (1997) The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Falk, Y. (2004). The Hebrew present-tense copula as a mixed category. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 04 conference, University of Canterbury, (pp. 226–246). On-line: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Francez, I. (2007a). Existental propositions. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  28. Francez, I. (2007b). Quantification in the coda of existentials. In M. Aloni, P. Dekker, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Amsterdam colloquium.Google Scholar
  29. Francez N., Steedman M. (2006) Categorial grammar and the semantics of contextual preposition phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(4): 381–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Freeze R. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gendler Szabó Z. (2006) Counting across times. Philosophical Perspectives 20(1): 399–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giannakidou, A. (2001). The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2459–735.Google Scholar
  33. Giannakidou A. (2002) UNTIL, aspect, and negation: A novel argument for two untils. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 12: 84–103Google Scholar
  34. Harris S.H. (1994) Factories of death: Japanese biological warfare and the American coverup. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Hazout I. (2004) The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 393–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heim I. (1987) Where does the definiteness constraint apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In: Reuland E., ter Meulen A. (eds) The representation of (In)definiteness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 21–42Google Scholar
  37. Heim I. (1991) Atikel und Definiteheit. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Hanbuch der Semantik. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  38. Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  39. Horn, L. (2000). Any and (-)ever: Free choice and free relatives. In A. Z. Weyner (Ed.), Proceedings of IATL 15 (pp. 71–111).Google Scholar
  40. Jenkins L. (1975) The English existential. Tübingen, NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
  41. Karttunen, L. (1974). Until. In Papers fromthe 10th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 283–297).Google Scholar
  42. Keenan E. (1987) A semantic definition of indefinite NP. In: Reuland E., ter Meulen A. (eds) The representation of (in)definiteness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 286–317Google Scholar
  43. Keenan E. (2003) The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics?. Natural Language Semantics 11(2): 187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kim, Y. (1997). A situation semantic account of existential sentences. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  45. Kimball J. (1973) The grammar of existence. In: Corum C., Smith-Stark C.T., Weiser A. (eds) Papers from the ninth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, IL, CLS, pp 262–270Google Scholar
  46. Kuno S. (1971) The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2(3): 233–278Google Scholar
  47. Kuroda S.Y. (1972) The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185Google Scholar
  48. Lambrecht K. (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Lambrecht K. (2000) When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24(3): 611–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Larson R. (1985) Bare–NP adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 595–621Google Scholar
  51. Larson, R. (2000). Temporal modification in nominals. Handout of paper presented at the International Round Table “The Syntax of Tense and Aspect” Paris, France.Google Scholar
  52. Lumsden M. (1988) Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. May R. (1985) Logical form. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  54. McCawley J. (1988) Adverbial NPs: Bare or clad in see–through garb?. Language 64(3): 683–590Google Scholar
  55. McNally L. (1992) An interpretation for the English existential construction. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. McNally L. (1998) Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(4): 353–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Milsark, G. (1974). Existential sentences in English. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  58. Milsark G. (1977) Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29Google Scholar
  59. Moro A. (1997) The raising of predicates. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Pollard C., Sag I. (1994) Head driven phrase structure grammar. CSLI publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Pratt I., Francez N. (2001) Temporal prepositions and temporal generalized quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(2): 187–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rooth, M. (1995). Indefinites, adverbs of quantification, and focus semantics. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 265–299). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Safir, K. (1982). Syntactic chains and the definiteness effect. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  64. Sasse H.-J. (1995) “Theticity” and VS order: A case study. Sprachtypologie und Unversalienforschung 48(1): 3–31Google Scholar
  65. Stanley, J., & Gendler Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15 (2 and 3), 219–261.Google Scholar
  66. Stowell, T. (1978). What was there before there was there. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, & K.W. Todrys (Eds.), Proceedings of CLS 14 (pp. 458–471).Google Scholar
  67. von Fintel K. (1997) Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics 14(1): 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. von Stechow A. (2002) Temporal prepositional phrases with quantifiers: Some additions to Pratt and Francez (2001). Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5): 755–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Westerståhl, D. (1984). Determiners and context sets. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 45–71). Dordrecht: Floris.Google Scholar
  70. Williams E. (1980) Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–238Google Scholar
  71. Williams E. (1984) There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 131–153Google Scholar
  72. Zucchi A. (1995) The ingredients of definiteness and the definiteness effect. Natural Language Semantics 3(1): 33–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations