Definiteness projection

Abstract

We argue that definite noun phrases give rise to uniqueness inferences characterized by a pattern we call definiteness projection. Definiteness projection says that the uniqueness inference of a definite projects out unless there is an indefinite antecedent in a position that filters presuppositions. We argue that definiteness projection poses a serious puzzle for e-type theories of (in)definites; on such theories, indefinites should filter existence presuppositions but not uniqueness presuppositions. We argue that definiteness projection also poses challenges for dynamic approaches, which have trouble generating uniqueness inferences and predicting some filtering behavior, though unlike the challenge for e-type theories, these challenges have mostly been noted in the literature, albeit in a piecemeal way. Our central aim, however, is not to argue for or against a particular view, but rather to formulate and motivate a generalization about definiteness which any adequate theory must account for.

References

  1. Austin, J.L. 1950. Truth. Aristotelian Society Supplementary 24 (1): 111–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beaver, D. 2001. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berman, S. 1987. Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, vol. 12, ed. J. Blevins and A. Vainikka, 45–64. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  4. Büring, D. 2004. Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12: 23–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooper, R. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 10, ed. F. Heny and H.S. Schnelle, 61–92. San Diego: Academic Press.

  6. Cumming, S. 2007. Proper nouns. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University.

  7. Davies, M. 1981. Meaning, quantification, and necessity: Themes in philosophical logic. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dekker, P. 1994. Predicate logic with anaphora (seven inch version). In Proceedings of SALT 4, ed. L. Santelmann and M. Harvey, 79–95. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

  9. Dekker, P. 1997. Cases, adverbs, situations and events. In Proceedings of the workshop on context dependence, ed. H. Kamp and B. Partee. IMS, Stuttgart and UFAL, Prague.

  10. Egli, U., and K. von Heusinger. 1995. The epsilon operator and e-type pronouns. In Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, ed. U. Egli, et al., 121–141. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Elbourne, P. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Elbourne, P. 2013. Definite Descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Evans, G. 1977. Pronouns quantifiers and relative clauses (i). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (3): 467–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Geach, P. 1962. Reference and generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Geurts, B. 1996. Local satisfaction guarenteed: A presupposition theory and its problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 259–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Geurts, B. 1998. Presuppositions and anaphors in attitude contexts. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (6): 545–601. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005481821597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  19. Heim, I. 2006. On the proviso problem. Presentation at Milan Meeting, Gargnano, June 17, 2006.

  20. Heim, I. 1983a. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, ed. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, 164–189. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Heim, I. 1983b. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of the 2nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), ed. M. Barlow, D .P. Flickinger, and N. Wiegand, 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335.ch10.

  22. Heim, I. 1990a. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heim, I. 1990b. Presupposition projection. In Reader for the Nijmegen workshop on presupposition, lexical meaning, and discourse processes, ed. R. van der Sandt. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heim, I. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Handbuch der Semantik, ed. A v Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  25. Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kadmon, N. 1987. On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  27. Kadmon, N. 1990. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13 (3): 273–324. ISSN 01650157, 15730549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, ed. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kanazawa, M. 2001. Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Karttunen, L. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4 (2): 169–93.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Karttunen, L. 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1 (1–3): 181–93. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Karttunen, L. 1976. Discourse referents. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 7, ed. J. McCawley. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Krahmer, E. 1998. Presupposition and Anaphora. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Krahmer, E., and R. Muskens. 1995. Negation and disjunction in discourse representation theory. Journal of Semantics 12: 357–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kratzer, A. 2019. Situations in natural language semantics. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, Spring 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/situations-semantics/ ed.

  36. Kratzer, A. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (5): 607–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lewis, K.S. 2019. Descriptions, pronouns, and uniqueness. Manuscript, Columbia University.

  38. Lewis, K. 2013. Speaker’s reference and anaphoric pronouns. Philosophical Perspectives 27 (1): 404–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ludlow, P. 1994. Conditionals, events, and unbound pronouns. Lingua e Stile 29: 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Maier, E. 2015. Parasitic attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 38: 205–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mandelkern, M. 2016. A note on the architecture of presupposition. Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (13): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mandelkern, M. 2019. Dynamic non-classicality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2019.1623826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Neale, S. 1990. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nouwen, R. 2003. Plural pronominal anaphora in context. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations 84. LOT.

  45. Parsons, T. 1978. Pronouns as paraphrases. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  46. Peters, S. 1979. A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. Synthese 40: 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Roberts, C. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (6): 683–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Roberts, C. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rothschild, D., and S. Yalcin. 2015. On the dynamics of conversation. No \(\hat{u}\)s 51 (1): 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12121.

  50. Rothschild, D. 2017. A trivalent approach to anaphora and presupposition. In Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, ed A. Cremers et al., 1–13. Amsterdam: ILLC.

  51. Rothschild, D., and S. Yalcin. 2016. Three notions of dynamicness in language. Linguistics and Philosophy 39 (4): 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9188-1. ISSN 1573-0549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schein, B. 1993. Plurals and events. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schlenker, P. 2008. Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34 (3): 157–212. https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Soames, S. 1989. Presuppositions. In Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 4, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, 553–616. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  55. Stalnaker, R. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. M.K. Munitz and P.K. Unger, 197–213. New York: NYU Press.

  56. Stalnaker, R. 1998. On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (1): 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sudo, Y. .2014. Presupposition satisfaction in attitude contexts and modal subordination. In The art and craft of semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 2 (MITWPL 71), ed. L. Crnik and U. Sauerland, 175–199. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

  58. Szabó, Z.G. 2000. Descriptions and uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101: 29–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. van der Sandt, R. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9 (3): 333–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. van der Sandt, R. 1989. Presupposition and discourse structure. In Semantics and contextual expression, ed. R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, 267–294. Dordrecht: Foris.

  61. von Fintel, K. 2008. What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1): 137–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Vostrikova, E. 2019. Compositional semantics for clausal exceptives. Talk at SALT 29, May 17, 2019, UCLA.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (GB) (Grant Nos. AH/N001877/1, AH/M009602/1).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Rothschild.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Many thanks to audiences at Leibniz-ZAS, the NYU Mind and Language seminar, the 2019 London Semantics Day at Queen Mary, and the UCL Semantics Seminar, and to Kyle Blumberg, Richard Breheny, Keny Chatain, Simon Charlow, Cian Dorr, Patrick Elliot, Nathan Klinedinst, Lukas Lewerentz, Karen Lewis, Florian Schwarz, Yasu Sudo, and three anonymous referees for Natural Language Semantics for very helpful comments and discussion.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This 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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mandelkern, M., Rothschild, D. Definiteness projection. Nat Lang Semantics 28, 77–109 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09159-2

Download citation