Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 1–31 | Cite as

Modal indefinites

  • Luis Alonso-OvalleEmail author
  • Paula Menéndez-Benito
Open Access


Across languages, we find indefinites that trigger modal inferences. This article contributes to a semantic typology of these items by contrasting Spanish algún with indefinites like German irgendein or Italian uno qualsiasi. While irgendein-type indefinites trigger a Free Choice effect (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002; Chierchia 2006), algún simply signals that at least two individuals in its domain are possibilities. Additionally, algún, but not irgendein, can convey that the speaker does not know how many individuals satisfy the existential claim in the world of evaluation. We contend that the two types of indefinites impose different constraints on their domain of quantification: irgendein and its kin are domain wideners (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002), whereas algún is an ‘anti-singleton’ indefinite (its domain cannot be restricted to a singleton). This, together with the fact that algún does not require uniqueness, allows us to derive the contrast between irgendein and algún by using the pragmatic reasoning presented by Kratzer and Shimoyama.


Indefinites Free Choice Domain widening Exhaustivity 


  1. Aloni, M. 2007. Expressing ignorance or indifference. Modal implicatures in BiOT. In Logic, language, and computation, 6th international Tbilisi symposium on logic, language, and computation, ed. B. ten Cate and H. Zeevat, 1–20. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, M., and R. van Rooij. 2004. Free choice items and alternatives. In Proceedings of the KNAW academy colloquium: Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 5–26.Google Scholar
  3. Alonso-Ovalle, L., and P. Menéndez-Benito. 2003. Some epistemic indefinites. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 33, ed. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara, 1–21. Amherst, MA: GLSAGoogle Scholar
  4. Alonso-Ovalle, L., P. Menéndez-Benito, and F. Schwarz. (to appear). Two types of definite determiners and maximize presupposition. In Proceedings of NELS 39. Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, M. 1999. The some indefinites. In UCLA working papers in linguistics, ed. G. Storto, 1–13.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia G. (2006) Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. (to appear). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Handbook of Semantics, ed. P. Portner, C. Maienborn, and K. von Heusinger, Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Ciucivara, O. S. 2007. Oarecare indefinites and free choice in Romanian. In Pitar Moş: A building with a view. Papers in honor of Alexandra Cornilescu, ed. G. Alboiu, A. Avram, L. Avram, and D. Isac, 205–225. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii Bucuresţi.Google Scholar
  9. Condoravdi, C. 2005. Not knowing or caring who. Ms., PARC and Stanford University.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper R. (1983) Quantification and syntactic theory. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Dayal, V. 1997. Free relatives and ever. Identity and free choice readings. In Proceedings of SALT VII, ed. A. Lawson, 99–116. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Dayal V. (1998) Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 433–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowty, D., and P. Jacobson. 1989. Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. In ESCOL 88, ed. J. Powers and F. de Jong, 95–101. Ithaca.Google Scholar
  14. Etxebarria, U., and A. Giannakidou. 2007. Contextual restrictions and the definite determiner. Talk presented at the conference ‘Context-dependence, perspective and relativity in language and thought’, Paris, November 9–11.Google Scholar
  15. Farkas, D. F. 2002. Varieties of indefinites. In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. B. Jackson, 59–83. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  16. Farkas, D. 2006. Free choice in Romanian. In Drawing the boundaries of meaning, Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, ed. B. J. Birner and G. Ward, 71–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  17. Giannakidou, A. 2004. Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners. In Proceedings of SALT 14, 110–128. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Heim, I. 2007. Person and number on bound and partially bound pronouns. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  20. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobson, P. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in Natural Languages, ed. A. K. Emmon Bach, E. Jelinek, and B. H. Partee, 451–486. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Kadmon, N., and F. Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422.Google Scholar
  23. Kagan, O. 2007. Specificity and the speaker’s belief. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  24. Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 47: 169–193Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer, A. 2003. Indefinites and functional heads: From Japanese to Salish. Talk given at SALT 13, May 2003, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  26. Kratzer, A. 2005. Indefinites and the operators they depend on: From Japanese to Salish. In Reference and quantification: The Partee effect, ed. G. N. Carlson and F. Pelletier, 113–142. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  27. Kratzer, A., and J. Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  28. Martí L. (2007) Restoring indefinites to normalcy: An experimental study on the scope of Spanish Algunos. Journal of Semantics 24(1): 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martí, L. 2009. Contextual restrictions on indefinites: Spanish algunos and unos. In Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, Vol. 22 of Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics, ed. A. Giannakidou and M. Rathert, 108–133. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Matthewson L. (2001) Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 2(9): 145–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menéndez-Benito, P. 2005. The grammar of choice. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  32. Percus, O. 2006. Antipresuppositions. In Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the extablishment of generative grammar as an empirical science, 52–73. Report of the Grantin-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No. 15320052, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.Google Scholar
  33. Potts C. (2005) Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Potts, C. 2007. Conventional implicatures, a distinguished class of meanings. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 475–501. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Quer J. (2000) Licensing free choice items in hostile environments: The role of aspect and mood. SKY Journal of Linguistics 13: 251–268Google Scholar
  36. Sauerland, U. 2003a. Implicated presuppositions. Handout, conference on polarity, scalar phenomena, and implicatures, University of Milan-Bicocca, June 2003.Google Scholar
  37. Sauerland, U. 2003b. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 13, ed. R. Youn and Y. Zhou, 258–275. Ithaca.Google Scholar
  38. Schwarzschild R. (2002) Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 289–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strawson P. (1974) Subject and predicate in logic and grammar. Methuen and Co, Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Tovena L.M., Jayez J. (2006) Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics 23(3): 217–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tredinnick, V. A. 2005. On the semantics of free relatives with -ever. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  42. van der Sandt R. (1992) Presuposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9(4): 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. von Fintel, K. 1999a. Quantifier domain selection and pseudo-scope. Paper presented at the Cornell conference on context-dependence, Cornell University, March 28.Google Scholar
  44. von Fintel, K. 1999b. Whatever. Class notes, 24.979 Topics in Semantics, Spring 1999, MIT.Google Scholar
  45. von Fintel, K. 2000a. Singleton indefinites (Schwarzschild 2000). Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  46. von Fintel, K. 2000b. Whatever. In Proceedings of SALT 10, ed. B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 27–40. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  47. von Fintel, K. 2003. Pragmatics: Notes on presupposition. Class notes, MIT.Google Scholar
  48. von Fintel K., Gillies A.S. (2008) CIA leaks. The Philosophical Review 117(1): 77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. von Fintel, K., and A. S. Gillies. 2008b. Might made right. Unpublished ms., MIT, to appear in a volume on epistemic modality, ed. Andy Egan and Brian Weatherson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. van Rooij R. (2006) Free choice counterfactual donkeys. Journal of Semantics 23(4): 383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yanovich, I. 2005. Choice-functional series of indefinite pronouns and Hamblin semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 15, ed. E. Georgala and J. Howell, 309–326. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  52. Zabbal, Y. 2004. A compositional semantics of the French expression N’Importe. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  53. Zamparelli, R. 2007. On singular existential quantifiers in Italian. In Existence: Semantics and syntax, ed. I. Comorovski and K. von Heusinger, 293–328. Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Zimmermann T.E. (2001) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hispanic Studies, McCormack 4-609University of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA
  2. 2.Seminar für Englische PhilologieUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations