Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 377–435 | Cite as

Definiteness and determinacy

Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Definiteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a (weak) uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate (and thus denote an individual) or indeterminate (functioning as an existential quantifier). The latter option is observed in examples like ‘Anna didn’t give the only invited talk at the conference’, which, on its indeterminate reading, implies that there is nothing in the extension of ‘only invited talk at the conference’. The paper also offers a resolution of the issue of whether possessives are inherently indefinite or definite, suggesting that, like indefinites, they do not mark definiteness lexically, but like definites, they typically yield determinate readings due to a general preference for the shifting operation that produces them.

Keywords

Definiteness Descriptions Possessives Predicates Type-shifting 

References

  1. 1.
    Aguilar-Guevara, A., & Zwarts, J. (2010). Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings of SALT 20, eLanguage (pp. 179–196)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker C. (1995) Possessive descriptions. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker, C. (2004). Possessive weak definites. In Y. Kim, Y. Lander, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax (pp. 89–113). Amherst: GSLA PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beaver, D. (1992). The kinematics of presupposition. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: ILLC, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beaver, D. (1994). When variables don’t vary enough. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT IV (pp. 35–60). Ithaca: Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beaver D.I., Clark B.Z. (2008) Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beaver D., Krahmer E. (2001) A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 147–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beaver, D., & Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 503–539). Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carlson, G. N., Sussman, R., Klein, N., & Tannenhaus, M. (2006). Weak definite noun phrases. In C. Davis, A. R. Deal, & Y. Zabal (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 36 (pp. 179–196). Amherst: GSLA, University of MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chierchia G. (1998) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6: 339–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper, R. (1978). Variable binding and relative clauses. In F. Guenthner & S. J. Schmidt (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages (pp. 131–170). Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooper, R. (2013). Update conditions and intensionality in a type-theoretic approach to dialogue semantics. In R. Fernández & A. Isard (Eds.), Proceedings of SemDial 2013, University of Amsterdam (pp. 15–24). http://www.illc.uva.nl/semdial/
  14. 14.
    Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2011). Sole sisters. In N. Ashton, A. Chereches, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 21, eLanguage (pp. 197–217). Newark: Rutgers UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2012a). Exclusivity, uniqueness, and definiteness. In C. Piñón (Ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9. Published online at http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr
  16. 16.
    Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2012b). Weak uniqueness: The only difference between definites and indefinites. In A. Chereches (Ed.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 22 (pp. 527–544). Ithaca, NY: CLC PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coppock E., Beaver D. (2014) Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics 31(3): 371–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dayal V. (2004) Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 393–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donnellan K.S. (1966) Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75: 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doron, E. (1983). Verbless predicates in Hebrew. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elbourne P. (2012) Definite descriptions. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fara, D. G. (2001). Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies, 102, 1–42. (Originally published under the name “Delia Graff”)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fara D. G. (2015) Names are predicates. Philosophical Review 124(1): 59–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frege, G. (1892). [reprinted 1948]). Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3), 209–230Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gendler Szabó Z. (2000) Descriptions and uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101: 29–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Geurts B. (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Geurts B., van der Sandt R. (2004) Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30(1): 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glanzberg M. (2007) Definite descriptions and quantifier scope: Some Mates cases reconsidered. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3(2): 133–158Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183–198). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haug, D. (2013). Partial dynamic semantics for anaphora: Compositionality without syntactic coindexation. Journal of Semantics (online first)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts at AmherstGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In D. Flickinger, M. Barlow, & M. Westcoat (Eds.), Proceedings of the second West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 114–125). Stanford, CA: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 487–535). Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hendriks H (1993). Studied flexibility: Categories and types in syntax and semantics. PhD Thesis, Universiteit van AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoeksema, J. (1988). The semantics of non-boolean and. Journal of Semantics, 6, 19–40Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Horn, L., & Abbott, B. (2002). <the, a>: (In)definiteness and implicature. In W. Kabasenche, M. O’Rourke, & M. Slater (Eds.), Reference and referring (pp. 325–355). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Isaacs J., Rawlins K. (2008) Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics 25(3): 269–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts at AmherstGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kamp, H. (2001). The importance of presupposition. In C. Rohrer, A. Roßdeutscher, & H. Kamp (Eds.), Linguistic form and its computation (pp. 207–254). Stanford, CA: CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In J. P. Almog & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 267–298). Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Karttunen L. (1974) Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Notes from the linguistic underground. Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 7, pp. 363–385). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kripke S.A. (2011) Philosophical troubles: Collected papers. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Landman F. (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, Malden, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lasersohn P. (1993) Existence presuppositions and background knowledge. Journal of Semantics 10: 113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Löbner S. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Löbner S. (2011) Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28: 279–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mates B. (1973) Descriptions and reference. Foundations of Language 10: 409–418Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Matushansky O. (2008) On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 573–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McNally, L. (1992). An interpretation for the English existential construction. PhD Thesis, UC Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    McNally L. (1998) Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 353–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Moltmann F. (1997) Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 5: 1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Montague, R. (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In R. H. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy (pp. 247–270). New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Muskens R. (1995) Meaning and partiality. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nelson, M. (2012). Existence. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/existence/
  60. 60.
    Oliver A., Smiley T. (2013) Plural logic. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Partee, B. H. (1986). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Partee, B., & Borschev, V. (2003). Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (pp. 67–112). Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Percus, O. (2006). Antipresuppositions. In A. Ueyama (Ed.), Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science (pp. 52–73). Tokyo: Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Peters S. (1979) A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. Synthese 40(2): 301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Peters S., Westerståhl D. (2013) The semantics of possessives. Language 89(4): 713–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Poesio, M. (1994). Weak definites. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth conference on semantics and linguistic theory. Ithaca: CLC PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rawlins, K. (2005). Possessive definites and the definite article. UCSC Qualifying PaperGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rawlins, K. (2006). Possessive antecedents to donkey pronouns. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 337–345). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla PressGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Roberts C. (1989) Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 683–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics (pp. 91–136). Columbus: The Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Schlenker P. (2012) Maximize Presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20(4): 391–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Schoubye A.J. (2009) Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6): 583–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schoubye, A. J. (2014). Type-ambiguous names. Ms., University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schwarz, F. (2012). How weak and how definite are weak definites? Ms., University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 315–332). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Strawson P.F. (1950) On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Strawson P. (1964) Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30(2): 96–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Thomason, R. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 326–363). Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    van der Sandt R.A. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Vikner C., Jensen P.A. (2002) A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56: 191–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 315–342). Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    von Heusinger K. (1997) Definite descriptions and choice functions. Logic, Language and Computation 5: 61–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wang, L., & McCready, E. (2005). Testing predicative definite descriptions. Ms., National Chung Cheng University and Osaka UniversityGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Winter Y. (2001) Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Zimmermann T.E. (1993) On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1(2): 149–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Gothenburg and Swedish Collegium for Advanced StudyUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.The University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations