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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abusch D. (1994) The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 83–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2): 159–219

    Article  Google 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 121–131

    Google Scholar 

  4. Büring D. (2005) Binding theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  6. Diesing M. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Donnellan K. (1966) Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75(3): 281–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fodor, J. (1970). The linguistic description of opaque contents. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  9. Fox D. (1999) Economy and semantic interpretation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gazdar G. (1980) A cross-categorial semantics for coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 3(3): 407–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ioup G. (1975) Some universals for quantifier scope. Syntax and Semantics 4: 37–58

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kamp H. (1971) Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria 37: 227–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Keenan E. (1993) Natural languages, sortal reducibility and generalized quantifiers. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 58(1): 314–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Keenan E., Faltz L. (1985) Boolean semantics for natural language. D Reidel Pub Co., Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  16. Keshet, E. (2008). Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto Distinction. PhD thesis, MIT.

  17. Keshet E. (2010a) Possible worlds and wide scope indefinites: A reply to Bäuerle 1983. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4): 692–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Keshet, E. (2010b). Situation economy. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 385–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9059-1.

  19. Kratzer A. (1986) Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society 22(2): 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kucerova, I. (2008). Givenness and maximize presupposition. Proceedings of SuB12, Oslo.

  21. Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13(4): 317–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ladusaw W. (1977) Some problems with tense in PTQ. Texas Linguistic Forum 6: 89–102

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lewis D. (1975) Adverbs of quantification. In: Keenan E.L. (Ed.) Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  24. May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. PhD thesis, MIT.

  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).

  26. Montague R. (1973) The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to Natural Language 49: 221–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ogihara, T. (1992). Temporal reference in English and Japanese. Indiana University Linguistics Club.

  28. Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  29. Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70(18): 601–609

    Article  Google 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.

  31. Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8(3): 173–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2009). De re/de dicto ambiguity and presupposition projection. In Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 13).

  33. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis, MIT.

  34. Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14(56): 479–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form.

  36. Stowell, T. (1993). Syntax of tense. Ms., UCLA.

  37. Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD thesis, MIT.

  38. von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2008). Intensional semantics lecture notes. Notes for class taught at MIT.

  39. von Stechow A. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1–2): 1–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wilder, C. (1997). Phrasal movement in LF: De re readings, VP-ellipsis and binding. Proceedings of NELS (Vol. 27, pp. 425–439).

  41. Winter Y. (1996) A unified semantic treatment of singular NP coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(4): 337–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ezra Keshet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keshet, E. Split intensionality: a new scope theory of de re and de dicto . Linguist and Philos 33, 251–283 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9081-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intensionality
  • De re
  • De dicto
  • Quantifiers
  • Scope