Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 1–55 | Cite as

How indefinites choose their scope

  • Adrian BrasoveanuEmail author
  • Donka F. Farkas
Research Article


The paper proposes a novel solution to the problem of scope posed by natural language indefinites that captures both the difference in scopal freedom between indefinites and bona fide quantifiers and the syntactic sensitivity that the scope of indefinites does nevertheless exhibit. Following the main insight of choice functional approaches, we connect the special scopal properties of indefinites to the fact that their semantics can be stated in terms of choosing a suitable witness. This is in contrast to bona fide quantifiers, the semantics of which crucially involves relations between sets of entities. We provide empirical arguments that this insight should not be captured by adding choice/Skolem functions to classical first-order logic, but in a semantics that follows Independence-Friendly Logic, in which scopal relations involving existentials are part of the recursive definition of truth and satisfaction. These scopal relations are resolved automatically as part of the interpretation of existentials. Additional support for this approach is provided by dependent indefinites, a cross-linguistically common class of special indefinites that can be straightforwardly analyzed in our semantic framework.


Exceptional scope (Dependent) indefinites Choice/Skolem functions Plural logic Independence-friendly logic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abusch D. (1994) The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 83–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bende-Farkas A., Kamp H. (2006) Epistemic specificity from a communication-theoretic perspective. Ms. IMS, Stuttgart UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Bittner, M. (2003). Word order and incremental update. In Proceedings of CLS 39-1 (pp. 634–664). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  4. Brasoveanu, A. (2007). Structured nominal and modal reference. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  5. Brasoveanu A. (2008) Donkey pluralities: Plural information states vs non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 129–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasoveanu A. (2010) Decomposing modal quantification. Journal of Semantics 27: 437–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caicedo X., Dechesne F., Janssen T.M.V. (2009) Equivalence and quantifier rules for logic with imperfect information. Logic Journal of IGPL 17: 91–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chierchia G. (2001) A puzzle about Indefinites. In: Cecchetto C., Chierchia G., Guasti M.T (eds) Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora and aspect.. Stanford, CA, CSLI, pp 51–89Google Scholar
  9. Dekker P. (1994) Predicate logic with anaphora. In: Santelmann L., Harvey M (eds) Proceedings of SALT IV.. Cornell University, Ithaca: DMLL, pp 79–95Google Scholar
  10. Dekker P. (2008) A multi-dimensional treatment of quantification in extraordinary English. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Endriss C. (2009) Quantificational topics-a scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena.. New York, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  12. Farkas, D. F. (1981). Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In R. Hendrik, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of CLS 7 (pp. 59–66). Ithaca: CLC, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  13. Farkas D.F. (1997a) Evaluation indices and scope. In: Szabolcsi A (eds) Ways of scope taking.. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 183–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farkas D.F. et al (1997b) Dependent indefinites. In: Corblin F. (eds) Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics.. Peter Lang Publishers, New York, pp 243–267Google Scholar
  15. Farkas D.F. (2001) Dependent indefinites and direct scope. In: Condoravdi C., Renardel G (eds) Logical perspectives on language and information.. Stanford, CA, CSLI, pp 41–72Google Scholar
  16. Farkas, D. F. (2002). Varieties of indefinites. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT XII (pp. 59–84). Ithaca: CLC, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  17. Farkas, D. F. (2007). Free choice in Romanian. In Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 71–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Fodor J.D., Sag I. (1982) Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Francez I. (2009) Existentials, predication and modification. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geurts B. (2000) Indefinites and choice functions. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 731–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geurts, B. (2010). Specific indefinites, presupposition and scope. In R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Presuppositions and discourse (pp. 125–158). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Hintikka J. (1973) Logic, language games and information. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Hintikka J. (1996) The principles of mathematics revisited. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hintikka J., Sandu G. (1997) Game-theoretical semantics. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A (eds) Handbook of logic and language.. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  25. Hodges W. (1997) Compositional semantics for a language of imperfect information. Logic Journal of the IGPL 5: 539–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janssen T.M.V. (1986) Foundations and applications of Montague grammar. CWI tract 19. CWI, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  27. Janssen T.M.V. (2002) Independent choices and the interpretation of IF logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11: 367–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kratzer A. (1998) Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide-scope indefinites?. In: Rothstein S (eds) Events in grammar.. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 163–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kratzer, A. (2003). A note on choice functions in context. Ms.Google Scholar
  30. Link G. (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bäuerle R., Schwartze C., Stechow A (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language.. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 302–323Google Scholar
  31. Matthewson L. (1999) On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7(1): 79–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muskens R. (1995) Meaning and partiality. Stanford, CSLIGoogle Scholar
  33. Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  35. Pereltsvaig, A. (2008). Variation and covariation. Handout for UCSC talk, May 29, 2008.Google Scholar
  36. Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruys, E. G. (1992). The scope of indefinites. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Sandu G. (1993) On the logic of informational independence and its applications. Journal of Philosophical Logic 22: 29–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schlenker P. (2005) Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of binding theory. Natural Language Semantics 13: 1–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schlenker P. (2006) Scopal independence: A note on branching and wide scope readings of indefinites and disjunctions. Journal of Semantics 23: 281–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwarz, B. (2001). Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. Ms.Google Scholar
  42. Schwarzschild R. (1996) Pluralities. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwarzschild R. (2002) Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 289–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stalnaker R. (1978) Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: 315–332Google Scholar
  45. Steedman, M. (2007). Surface-compositional scope-alternation without existential quantifiers. Ms, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  46. Väänänen J. (2007) Dependence logic: A new approach to independence friendly logic. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van den Berg, M. (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  48. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation, UMass, Amherst.Google Scholar
  49. Wang L., McCready E., Asher N. (2006) Information dependency in quantificational subordination. In: Heusinger K., Turner K (eds) Where semantics meets pragmatics.. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 268–304Google Scholar
  50. Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winter Y. (2000) Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics 8: 27–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations