In this paper, we argue that same is fundamentally different from different, in that same imposes a discourse condition on eventualities, while different compares individuals. This difference has not been noted in previous literature. Furthermore, in the literature on same, there has been a persistent puzzle about the contribution of the definite article with which same must co-occur. We show that this puzzle is resolved once the contribution of same is adjusted to apply to eventualities: then the definite article can be interpreted in the usual way, as generating a presupposition about individuals.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Asher N., Hardt D., Busquets J. (2001) Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18(1): 1–25
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bach, E. W. (1981). Time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Barker C. (2007) Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(4): 407–444
Brasoveanu A. (2011) Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(2): 93–168
Bumford D., Barker C. (2013) Association with distributivity and the problem of multiple antecedents for singular different. Linguistics and Philosophy 36(5): 355–369
Carlson G. (1987) Same and different: Consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10(4): 531–565
Dowty, D. (1985). A unified indexical analysis of same and different: A response to Stump and Carlson. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University.
Hardt, D., Asher, N., & Hunter, J. (2013). VP ellipsis without indices. Proceedings of 23rd semantics and linguistic theory (pp. 239–256). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California.
Hardt, D., Mikkelsen, L., & Ørsnes, B. (2012). Sameness, ellipsis and anaphora. In M. Aloni & F. Veltman (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 341–350). Amsterdam: Foris.
Hawthorne, J., & Manley, D. (2012). The reference book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.
Hobbs J. R. (1979) Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3(1): 67–90
Hobbs, J. R., & Kehler, A. (1997). A theory of parallelism and the case of VP ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 394–401.
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrect: Kluwer.
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kehler, A. (2004). Discourse coherence. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 241–265). Oxford: Blackwell.
Landman, F., & Partee, B. H. (1987). Weak NP’s in HAVE sentences. Unpublished abstract, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Merchant, J. (2008). Variable island repair under ellipsis. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp. 132–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nowak, E. (2014). Demonstratives, hidden arguments, and presupposition. Unpublished manuscript, UC, Berkeley.
Partee, B. H. (1999). Weak NP’s in HAVE sentences. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, & Y. Venema (Eds.), JFAK, a Liber Amicorum for Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Prüst, H., Scha, R., & van den Berg, M. (1994). A discourse perspective on Verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(3), 261–327.
Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.