Abstract
This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Definiteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a (weak) uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate (and thus denote an individual) or indeterminate (functioning as an existential quantifier). The latter option is observed in examples like ‘Anna didn’t give the only invited talk at the conference’, which, on its indeterminate reading, implies that there is nothing in the extension of ‘only invited talk at the conference’. The paper also offers a resolution of the issue of whether possessives are inherently indefinite or definite, suggesting that, like indefinites, they do not mark definiteness lexically, but like definites, they typically yield determinate readings due to a general preference for the shifting operation that produces them.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aguilar-Guevara, A., & Zwarts, J. (2010). Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings of SALT 20, eLanguage (pp. 179–196)
Barker C. (1995) Possessive descriptions. CSLI Publications, Stanford
Barker, C. (2004). Possessive weak definites. In Y. Kim, Y. Lander, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax (pp. 89–113). Amherst: GSLA Publications
Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219
Beaver, D. (1992). The kinematics of presupposition. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam
Beaver, D. (1994). When variables don’t vary enough. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT IV (pp. 35–60). Ithaca: Cornell University
Beaver D.I., Clark B.Z. (2008) Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
Beaver D., Krahmer E. (2001) A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 147–182
Beaver, D., & Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 503–539). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Carlson, G. N., Sussman, R., Klein, N., & Tannenhaus, M. (2006). Weak definite noun phrases. In C. Davis, A. R. Deal, & Y. Zabal (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 36 (pp. 179–196). Amherst: GSLA, University of Massachusetts
Chierchia G. (1998) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6: 339–405
Cooper, R. (1978). Variable binding and relative clauses. In F. Guenthner & S. J. Schmidt (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages (pp. 131–170). Dordrecht: Reidel
Cooper, R. (2013). Update conditions and intensionality in a type-theoretic approach to dialogue semantics. In R. Fernández & A. Isard (Eds.), Proceedings of SemDial 2013, University of Amsterdam (pp. 15–24). http://www.illc.uva.nl/semdial/
Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2011). Sole sisters. In N. Ashton, A. Chereches, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 21, eLanguage (pp. 197–217). Newark: Rutgers University
Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2012a). Exclusivity, uniqueness, and definiteness. In C. Piñón (Ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9. Published online at http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr
Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2012b). Weak uniqueness: The only difference between definites and indefinites. In A. Chereches (Ed.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 22 (pp. 527–544). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications
Coppock E., Beaver D. (2014) Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics 31(3): 371–432
Dayal V. (2004) Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 393–450
Donnellan K.S. (1966) Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75: 281–304
Doron, E. (1983). Verbless predicates in Hebrew. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin
Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Elbourne P. (2012) Definite descriptions. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Fara, D. G. (2001). Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies, 102, 1–42. (Originally published under the name “Delia Graff”)
Fara D. G. (2015) Names are predicates. Philosophical Review 124(1): 59–117
Frege, G. (1892). [reprinted 1948]). Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3), 209–230
Gendler Szabó Z. (2000) Descriptions and uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101: 29–57
Geurts B. (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, Oxford
Geurts B., van der Sandt R. (2004) Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30(1): 1–44
Glanzberg M. (2007) Definite descriptions and quantifier scope: Some Mates cases reconsidered. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3(2): 133–158
Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183–198). New York: Academic Press
Haug, D. (2013). Partial dynamic semantics for anaphora: Compositionality without syntactic coindexation. Journal of Semantics (online first)
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In D. Flickinger, M. Barlow, & M. Westcoat (Eds.), Proceedings of the second West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 114–125). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 487–535). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford
Hendriks H (1993). Studied flexibility: Categories and types in syntax and semantics. PhD Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam
Hoeksema, J. (1988). The semantics of non-boolean and. Journal of Semantics, 6, 19–40
Horn, L., & Abbott, B. (2002). <the, a>: (In)definiteness and implicature. In W. Kabasenche, M. O’Rourke, & M. Slater (Eds.), Reference and referring (pp. 325–355). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Isaacs J., Rawlins K. (2008) Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics 25(3): 269–319
Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Kamp, H. (2001). The importance of presupposition. In C. Rohrer, A. Roßdeutscher, & H. Kamp (Eds.), Linguistic form and its computation (pp. 207–254). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In J. P. Almog & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 267–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Karttunen L. (1974) Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–194
Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Notes from the linguistic underground. Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 7, pp. 363–385). New York: Academic Press
Kripke S.A. (2011) Philosophical troubles: Collected papers. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Landman F. (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, Malden, MA
Lasersohn P. (1993) Existence presuppositions and background knowledge. Journal of Semantics 10: 113–122
Löbner S. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326
Löbner S. (2011) Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28: 279–333
Mates B. (1973) Descriptions and reference. Foundations of Language 10: 409–418
Matushansky O. (2008) On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 573–627
McNally, L. (1992). An interpretation for the English existential construction. PhD Thesis, UC Santa Cruz
McNally L. (1998) Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 353–392
Moltmann F. (1997) Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 5: 1–52
Montague, R. (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In R. H. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy (pp. 247–270). New Haven: Yale University Press
Muskens R. (1995) Meaning and partiality. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186
Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Nelson, M. (2012). Existence. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/existence/
Oliver A., Smiley T. (2013) Plural logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Partee, B. H. (1986). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris
Partee, B., & Borschev, V. (2003). Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (pp. 67–112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Percus, O. (2006). Antipresuppositions. In A. Ueyama (Ed.), Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science (pp. 52–73). Tokyo: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Peters S. (1979) A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. Synthese 40(2): 301–316
Peters S., Westerståhl D. (2013) The semantics of possessives. Language 89(4): 713–759
Poesio, M. (1994). Weak definites. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth conference on semantics and linguistic theory. Ithaca: CLC Publications
Rawlins, K. (2005). Possessive definites and the definite article. UCSC Qualifying Paper
Rawlins, K. (2006). Possessive antecedents to donkey pronouns. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 337–345). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press
Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397
Roberts C. (1989) Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 683–721
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics (pp. 91–136). Columbus: The Ohio State University
Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493
Schlenker P. (2012) Maximize Presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20(4): 391–429
Schoubye A.J. (2009) Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6): 583–617
Schoubye, A. J. (2014). Type-ambiguous names. Ms., University of Edinburgh
Schwarz, F. (2012). How weak and how definite are weak definites? Ms., University of Pennsylvania
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press
Strawson P.F. (1950) On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344
Strawson P. (1964) Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30(2): 96–118
Thomason, R. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 326–363). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
van der Sandt R.A. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377
Vikner C., Jensen P.A. (2002) A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56: 191–226
von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 315–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press
von Heusinger K. (1997) Definite descriptions and choice functions. Logic, Language and Computation 5: 61–91
Wang, L., & McCready, E. (2005). Testing predicative definite descriptions. Ms., National Chung Cheng University and Osaka University
Winter Y. (2001) Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Zimmermann T.E. (1993) On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1(2): 149–179
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The appendix is dedicated to Robin Cooper, who once wistfully expressed to the first author a wish that people still did fragments these days.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Coppock, E., Beaver, D. Definiteness and determinacy. Linguist and Philos 38, 377–435 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9178-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9178-8