Linguistics and Philosophy

, 33:251 | Cite as

Split intensionality: a new scope theory of de re and de dicto

Research Article

Abstract

The traditional scope theory of intensionality (STI) (see Russell 1905; Montague 1973; Ladusaw 1977; Ogihara 1992, 1996; Stowell 1993) is simple, elegant, and, for the most part, empirically adequate. However, a few quite troubling counterexamples to this theory have lead researchers to propose alternatives, such as positing null situation pronouns (Percus 2000) or actuality operators (Kamp 1971; Cresswell 1990) in the syntax of natural language. These innovative theories do correct the undergeneration of the original scope theory, but at a cost: the situation pronoun and operator theories overgenerate, as argued extensively by Percus (2000) and Keshet (2008). This paper presents new data that supports the STI over other analyses, such as structures where DPs lose their de re readings in positions where syntactic movement is blocked. These data point the way to a new theory of intensionality. This new theory, called split intensionality, is a modification of the STI which aims to solve the problems raised for the original scope theory without overgenerating. The proposal calls for an additional intensional abstraction operator that creates an expression denoting an intension from an expression denoting an extension. When a DP moves to a position above this operator, it is interpreted de re; otherwise it is de dicto. The crucial part of the new proposal is that a DP may move above this operator and yet remain, for instance, below an intentional verb or inside an if-clause. Therefore, a DP within an island for syntactic movement may be de re and yet not move out of the island when the intensional abstraction operator is also within the island.

Keywords

Intensionality De re De dicto Quantifiers Scope 

References

  1. Abusch D. (1994) The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 83–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2): 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bäuerle R. (1983) Pragmatischsemantische Aspekte der NP-Interpretation. In: Faust M., Harweg R., Lehfeldt W., Wienold G. (eds) Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Textlinguistik. Narr, Tübingen, pp 121–131Google Scholar
  4. Büring D. (2005) Binding theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Diesing M. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Donnellan K. (1966) Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75(3): 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fodor, J. (1970). The linguistic description of opaque contents. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Fox D. (1999) Economy and semantic interpretation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Gazdar G. (1980) A cross-categorial semantics for coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 3(3): 407–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Ioup G. (1975) Some universals for quantifier scope. Syntax and Semantics 4: 37–58Google Scholar
  13. Kamp H. (1971) Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria 37: 227–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keenan E. (1993) Natural languages, sortal reducibility and generalized quantifiers. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 58(1): 314–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keenan E., Faltz L. (1985) Boolean semantics for natural language. D Reidel Pub Co., DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Keshet, E. (2008). Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto Distinction. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Keshet E. (2010a) Possible worlds and wide scope indefinites: A reply to Bäuerle 1983. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4): 692–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keshet, E. (2010b). Situation economy. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 385–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9059-1.
  19. Kratzer A. (1986) Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society 22(2): 1–15Google Scholar
  20. Kucerova, I. (2008). Givenness and maximize presupposition. Proceedings of SuB12, Oslo.Google Scholar
  21. Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13(4): 317–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ladusaw W. (1977) Some problems with tense in PTQ. Texas Linguistic Forum 6: 89–102Google Scholar
  23. Lewis D. (1975) Adverbs of quantification. In: Keenan E.L. (Ed.) Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  24. May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Montague, R. (1970). English as a formal language. In B. Visentini (Ed.), Milan: Edizioni di Comunità. Linguaggi nella Societa e nella Tecnica (pp. 189–223).Google Scholar
  26. Montague R. (1973) The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to Natural Language 49: 221–242Google Scholar
  27. Ogihara, T. (1992). Temporal reference in English and Japanese. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  28. Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70(18): 601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokho (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, (Vol. 8, pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8(3): 173–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2009). De re/de dicto ambiguity and presupposition projection. In Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 13).Google Scholar
  33. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14(56): 479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form.Google Scholar
  36. Stowell, T. (1993). Syntax of tense. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  37. Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  38. von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2008). Intensional semantics lecture notes. Notes for class taught at MIT.Google Scholar
  39. von Stechow A. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1–2): 1–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilder, C. (1997). Phrasal movement in LF: De re readings, VP-ellipsis and binding. Proceedings of NELS (Vol. 27, pp. 425–439).Google Scholar
  41. Winter Y. (1996) A unified semantic treatment of singular NP coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(4): 337–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations