Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 295–350 | Cite as

The scope of indefinites: an experimental investigation

  • Tania IoninEmail author


This paper reports on an experimental investigation of the scope of English a indefinites and a certain indefinites. Three experiments test whether native English speakers allow indefinites to scope out of syntactic islands, and to take intermediate as well as widest scope. The experimental findings indicate that a indefinites and a certain indefinites have different ranges of interpretations available to them. Experiment 1 shows that a certain indefinites, unlike a indefinites, cannot be interpreted in the scope of an intensional operator, and further shows that functional readings are available to a certain indefinites but not to a indefinites. Experiment 2 focuses on the availability of long-distance readings of indefinites out of scope islands, and shows that the most accessible reading for a certain indefinites is the widest-scope reading, while the most accessible reading for a indefinites is the narrow-scope reading. Experiment 3 shows that modification of an a indefinite by a relative clause does not facilitate long-distance readings, as long as it does not restrict the domain to a singleton set. Overall, these findings are consistent with the proposal of Schwarz (Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILCC, University of Amsterdam, 192–197, 2001) that a certain indefinites and a indefinites are derived by different semantic mechanisms. The behavior of a certain indefinites is shown to be consistent with the contextually determined choice function approach Kratzer (Events in grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 165–196, 1998) and the singleton indefinite approach Schwarzschild (J Semant 19:289–314, 2002). In contrast, a indefinites are most compatible with a purely quantificational approach, contra much recent theoretical literature. These findings highlight the value of conducting experimental studies testing the predictions of semantic theories.


Choice function Experiment Indefinite Island Scope Specificity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11050_2010_9057_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (66 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 65.9 kb)


  1. Abusch D. (1994) The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abusch, D., and M. Rooth. 1997. Epistemic NP modifiers. In Proceedings of SALT 7, ed. R. Hendrik et al., 1–27. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. Alonso-Ovalle, L., and P. Menéndez-Benito. 2007. Another look at indefinite islands. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston and University of Goettingen. Under review.
  5. Anderson, C. 2004. The Structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. PhD diss., Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  6. Breheny, R. 2003. Exceptional-scope indefinites and domain restriction. In Proceedings of the Conference ‘sub 7 – Sinn und Bedeutung’. 7th Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, ed. M. Weisgerber, Number 114 in Konstanzer Arbeitspapiere Linguistik, 38–52. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G. 2001. A puzzle about indefinites. In Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora, and aspect, ed. C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, and M.T. Guasti, 51–89. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Cresti, D. Indefinite topics. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson D. (1984) Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Endriss, C. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 86. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Farkas, D. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Proceedings of CLS 7, ed. R. Hendrik et al., 59–66. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Farkas, D. 2002. Varieties of indefinites. In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. B. Jackson, 58–83. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Fodor J., Sag I. (1982) Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5: 355–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geurts, B. 2002. Indefinites, presupposition, and scope. In Presuppositions and discourse, ed. R. Bäuerle and T. Zimmermann. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gualmini A., Hulsey S., Hacquard V., Fox D. (2008) The Question-Answer Requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics, 16: 205–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutiérrez-Rexach J. (2001) The semantics of Spanish plural existential determiners and the dynamics of judgment types. Probus 13: 113–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  20. Hintikka J. (1986) The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 331–336Google Scholar
  21. Iatridou, S., and I. Sichel. 2008. NegDPs and scope diminishment: Some basic patterns. In Proceedings of NELS 38. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  22. Ionin T. (2006) This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ionin, T. 2008. An experimental investigation of the semantics and pragmatics of specificity. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. N. Abner and J. Bishop, 229–237. Somerville, MA.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ionin, T. Under Review. An experimental study on the scope of (un)modified indefinites. Submitted to a special issue of the International Review of Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  25. Ioup, G. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. In Syntax and semantics, ed. J. P. Kimball, Vol. 4, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. King J. (1988) Are indefinite descriptions ambiguous?. Philosophical Studies 53: 417–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kluender, R. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Syntax and semantics Vol. 29: The limits of syntax, ed. P. Culicover and L. McNally, 241–279. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Kratzer, A., and J. Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate phrases: The view from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  30. Kurtzman H.S., MacDonald M.C. (1993) Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48: 243–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyons C. (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martí, L. 2005. Donald Duck is back and he speaks Spanish. In Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. P. Dekker and M. Franke, 143–148. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  33. Martí L. (2007) Restoring indefinites to normalcy: An experimental study on the scope of Spanish algunos. Journal of Semantics 24: 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthewson L. (1999) On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. May, R. 1977. The grammar of quantification. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer M.-C., Sauerland U. (2009) A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection: A rejoinder to Büring and Hartmann and to Reis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Montague, R. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Formal Philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, ed. R. Thomason, 247–270. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Musolino, J. 1998. Universal Grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge. PhD diss., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  39. Portner P. (2002) Topicality and (non)-specificity in Mandarin. Journal of Semantics, 19: 275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Portner P., Yabushita K. (2001) Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics. Journal of Semantics 18: 221–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prince E. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In Elements of Discourse Understanding, ed. A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber and I.A. Sag, 231–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pylkkänen, L., and B. McElree. 2006. The syntax-semantics interface: on-line composition of sentence meaning. In Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed.), ed. M. Traxler and M.A. Gernsbacher, 537–577. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruys, E.G. 1992. The scope of indefinites. PhD diss, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  45. Schwarz, B. 2001. Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. R. van Rooy and M. Stokhof, 192–197. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. Schwarzschild R. (2002) Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19: 289–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sprouse J. (2008) The differential sensitivity of acceptability judgments to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 686–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tunstall, S.L. 1998. The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  49. Villalta E. (2003) The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Journal of Semantics 20: 115–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winter Y. (2001) Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  52. Winter Y. (2005) On some problems of (in)definiteness in flexible semantics. Lingua 115: 767–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations