Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 431–475 | Cite as

Situation pronouns in determiner phrases

  • Florian SchwarzEmail author
Article

Abstract

It is commonly argued that natural language has the expressive power of quantifying over intensional entities, such as times, worlds, or situations. A standard way of modelling this assumes that there are unpronounced but syntactically represented variables of the corresponding type. Not all that much as has been said, however, about the exact syntactic location of these variables. Meanwhile, recent work has highlighted a number of problems that arise because the interpretive options for situation pronouns seem to be subject to various restrictions. This paper is primarily concerned with situation pronouns inside of determiner phrases, arguing that they are introduced as arguments of (certain) determiners. Verbal predicates, on the other hand, are assumed to not combine with a situation pronoun. The various restrictions on their interpretation are shown to fall out from the semantic system that is developed based on that view. Further support for such an account comes from situation semantic analyses of donkey sentences as well as data on the temporal interpretation of nominal predicates. Its ability to account for this full range of data in a unified manner is shown to set it apart from previous proposals. The paper closes with an outlook on further extensions, including an account of quantifier domain restriction based on situation pronouns.

Keywords

Intensionality Situation semantics Transparent interpretations Determiners Quantifiers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch Dorit. (1994) The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 83–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise J., Etchemendy J. (1987) The liar. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bäuerle, Rainer. 1983. Pragmatisch-semantische Aspekte der NP-Interpretation. In Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie, und Textlinguistik: Festschrift für Peter Hartmann, ed. M. Faust, R. Harweg, W. Lehfeldt, and G. Wienold, 121–131. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  5. van Benthem J.F.A. K. (1977) Tense logic and standard logic. Logique et Analyse 80: 395–437Google Scholar
  6. Berman, S. 1987. Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In UMOP 12, ed. J. Blevins and A. Vainikka, 45–68. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  7. Büring Daniel (2003) On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Büring Daniel. (2004) Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12(1): 23–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Büring Daniel. (2005) Binding theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, Robin. 1978. Variable binding and relative clauses. In Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural language, ed. F. Guenthner and S. J. Schmidt, 131–169. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, Robin. 1993. Generalized quantifiers and resource situations. In Situation theory and its applications, ed. Peter Aczel, Robin Cooper, Yasushiro Katagiri, John Perry, Kuniaki Mukai, David Israel, and Stanley Peters, 191–212. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, Robin. 1995. The role of situations in generalized quantifiers. In Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Shalom Lappin. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Cresswell M. J. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elbourne Paul. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Enç, Mürvet. 1981. Tense without scope: An analysis of nouns as indexicals. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  16. Enç Mürvet. (1986) Toward a referential analysis of temporal expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 405–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fintel, K. von., and Irene Heim. 2007. Intensional semantics. Lecture Notes, MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Fodor, Janet D. 1970. The linguistic description of opaque contents. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Heim Irene. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2): 137–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heim Irene, Angelika Kratzer. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  21. Iatridou, S., and I. Sichel. 2008. Negative DPs and scope diminishment: Some basic patterns. In Proceedings of NELS 38, ed. A. Schardl, M. Walkow, and M. Badurrahman, 337–350. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, GLSA.Google Scholar
  22. Iatridou S., Sichel. I. (2011) Negative DPs, A-Movement, and Scope Diminishment. Linguistic Inquiry 42(4): 595–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamp Hans. (1971) Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria 37: 227–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keshet, Ezra. 2008a. Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto distinction. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Keshet, Ezra. 2008b. Only the strong: Restricting situation variables. In Proceedings of SALT 18, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito, 483–495. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  26. Keshet Ezra. (2010) Situation economy. Natural Language Semantics 18: 385–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keshet, Ezra. 2011a. Possible worlds and wide scope indefinites: A reply to Bäuerle 1983. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (4): 692–701. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00019.
  28. Keshet, Ezra. 2011b. Split intensionality: A new scope theory of de re and de dicto. Linguistics and Philosophy. doi: 10.1007/s10988-011-9081-x. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d584131779263716/.
  29. Kratzer Angelika. (1989) An investigation of the lumps of though. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5): 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Covert quantifier restrictions in natural languages. Talk given at Palazzo Feltrinelli in Gargnano, June 11, 2004.Google Scholar
  31. Kratzer, Angelika. 2007. Situations in natural language semantics. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Kusumoto, Kiyomi. 1999. Tense in embedded contexts. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  33. Kusumoto Kiyomi. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13(4): 317–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ladusaw W. (1977) Some problems with tense in PTQ. Texas Linguistic Forum 6: 89–102Google Scholar
  35. Landman, Fred (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis David. (1986) On the plurality of worlds. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Matthewson Lisa. (2001) Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9(1): 145–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milsark, G. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Milsark G. (1977) Towards the explanation of certain peculiarities of existential sentences in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29Google Scholar
  40. Montague, R. 1974. Formal philosophy. Selected papers by Richard Montague, ed. R. H. Thomason. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Musan, Renate. 1995. On the temporal Interpretation of noun phrases. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  42. Ogihara T. (1992) Temporal reference in English and Japanese. Indiana University Linguistics Club, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  44. Percus Orin. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8(3): 173–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwager, Magdalena. 2010. Speaking of qualities. In Proceedings of SALT 9. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  48. Schwarz, Florian. 2011. Situation pronouns and domain restriction. Ms, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  49. Soames Scott. (1986) Incomplete definite descriptions. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27: 349–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stechow, A. von. 1984. Structured propositions and essential indexicals. In Varieties of formal semantics. Proceedings of the 4th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. Fred Landman and Frank Feldman, 385–404. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Stowell, Tim. 1993. Syntax of tense. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  52. Vlach, Frank. 1973. ‘Now’ and ‘then’: A formal study in the logic of tense anaphora. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics & Institute for Research in Cognitive ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations