Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 169–199 | Cite as

On identification and transworld identity in natural language: the case of -ever free relatives

Research Article


An -ever free relative is felicitous only when the speaker doesn’t know, or doesn’t care about, the identity of the entity denoted. In this paper we investigate what it means to identify an entity by examining the non-identification condition on -ever free relatives. Following Dayal (In A. Lawson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT VII, 1997), we analyze -ever free relatives as definites with a modal dimension. We show that the variation in the identity of the entity across the possible worlds in the modal dimension cannot be captured in a model where transworld identity is expressed using a single trivial principle of identity, and present an analysis within a model where transworld identity is relativized to noun meanings, which has been proposed in the philosophical literature for other reasons (Geach 1968; Gupta, The logic of common nouns: an investigation in quantified modal logic, 1980). The analysis thus shows that natural language semantics is sensitive to relative identity in the sense of Geach and Gupta; furthermore, it sets the stage for a new typology of referring expressions based on which expression types contribute principles of transworld identity.


Relative identity Referring expressions Sorts Free relatives 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aloni, M. (2001). Quantification under conceptual covers. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Baker M.C. (2003) Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borer H. (2005) In name only: Structuring sense (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun D. (2008) Complex demonstratives and their singular contents. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 57–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown R. (1965) How shall things be called?. In: Oldfield R.C., Marshall J.C. (eds) Language. Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp 82–92Google Scholar
  6. Caponigro, I. (2003). Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  7. Caponigro I., Pearl L. (2008) Silent prepositions: Evidence from free relatives. In: Asbury A., Dotlačil J., Gehrke B., Gehrke B. (eds) The syntax and semantics of spatial P. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 365–385Google Scholar
  8. Caponigro I., Pearl L. (2009) The nominal nature of where, when, and how: Evidence from free relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter.’ In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Condoravdi, C. (2008). Free choice and uncertainty. Handout of talk given at the Workshop on Inferential Mechanisms and their Linguistic Manifestations, University of Kyoto.Google Scholar
  11. Cruse D.A. (1977) The pragmatics of lexical specificity. Journal of Linguistics 13: 153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dayal, V. (1995). Quantification in correlatives. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural language (pp. 179–205). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Dayal, V. (1997). Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In A. Lawson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT VII (pp. 99–116). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Geach P.T. (1968) Reference and generality (emended edition). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. Geach P.T. (1972) Logic matters. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghomeshi, J., & Massam, D. (2005). The dog, the moon, the Hague and Canada. In C. Gurski (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Canadian Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  17. Ghomeshi, J., & Massam, D. (2009). The proper D connection. In J. Ghomeshi, I. Paul, & M. Wiltschko (Eds.), Determiners: Universals and variation (pp. 67–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gupta A. (1980) The logic of common nouns: An investigation in quantified modal logic. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  20. Heller, D. (2005). Identity and information: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of specificational sentences. Dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  21. Heller, D., & Wolter, L. (2008). That is rosa: Identificational sentences as intensional predication. In A. Grønn (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12 (pp. 226–240), University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, D., & Wolter, L. (2009). Identity and indeterminacy in -ever free relatives. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT XVIII (pp. 394–410). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, P. (1995). On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 451–486). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. King J.C. (2001) Complex demonstratives. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Kripke S.A. (1980) Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Landman F. (1989) Groups II. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6): 723–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Longobardi G. (1994) Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665Google Scholar
  30. Lyons C. (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matushansky, O. (2006). Why rose is the rose: On the use of definite articles in proper names. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics (Vol. 6, pp. 285–307). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Pelletier F.J., Thomason R.H. (2002) Twenty-five years of linguistics and philosophy. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 507–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts, C. (2002). Demonstratives as definites. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (pp. 89–196). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  34. Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  35. Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals: An essay in descriptive metaphysics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  36. Tredinnick, V. A. (2005). On the semantics of free relatives with -ever. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  37. von Fintel, K. (2000). Whatever. In B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT X (pp. 27–40). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Wasserman, R. (2009). Material constitution. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2009 edition). Retrieved from
  39. Wolter, L. (2006). That’s that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Dept. of EnglishUniversity of Wisconsin, Eau ClaireEau ClaireUSA

Personalised recommendations