Researchers often assume that possible worlds and times are represented in the syntax of natural languages. However, it has been noted that such a system can overgenerate. This paper proposes a constraint on systems where worlds and times are represented as situation pronouns. The Intersective Predicate Generalization, based on and extending work by R. Musan, states that two items composed via Predicate Modification, such as a noun and an intersective modifier, must be evaluated in the same world and time. To explain this generalization, a rule of Situation Economy is advanced, which holds that structures must have the fewest number of situation pronouns possible. Since strong DPs require a situation pronoun to receive a de re reading, a restriction on the type of strong determiners is proposed, which supersedes Situation Economy in this case. Finally, the paper shows how the Situation Economy approach explains an unrelated phenomenon involving bare plurals and examines the connection between this new rule and the grammar of natural language in general.
KeywordsIntensionality Modality Situations Pronouns Variables Economy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Benveniste E. (1966) Problémes de linguistique générale. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar
- Chomsky N. (1989) Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 43–74Google Scholar
- Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Diesing M. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Dowty D. (1979) Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
- Fox D. (1999) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
- Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
- Jackendoff R. (1977) X′ syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Kayne R. (2000) Parameters and universals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Keenan, Edward 1987. A semantic definition of “indefinite NP”. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. E.J. Reuland, and A. ter Meulen, 286–317, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Keenan E., Faltz L. (1985) Boolean semantics for natural language. Reidel, DodrechtGoogle Scholar
- Keshet, E. 2008. Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto distinction, PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
- Kratzer A. (1996) Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon 33: 109–137Google Scholar
- Kratzer, A. 2007. Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-semantics/.
- Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: A lattice theoretic approach. In meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle et al. 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Magri, G. 2006. The blindness hypothesis and individual level predicates. In Proceedings of SALT 16. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
- Milsark, G. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
- Milsark G. (1977) Towards the explanation of certain peculiarities of existential sentences in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29Google Scholar
- Musan R. (1997) On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Partee, B. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, Vol. 8, ed. Groenendijk et al., 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
- Pesetsky D., E. Torrego. (2004). Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The syntax of time, ed. J. Guéron and J. Lecarme 495–537, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Pylkkänen, M. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
- Pylkkänen M. (2008) Introducing arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
- Reinhart T. (1995) Interface strategies. Utrecht, OTS Working PapersGoogle Scholar
- Sauerland U. (2000) Syntactic economy and quantifier Raising. University of Tübingen, ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
- von Fintel, K., and I. Heim. 2002. Intensional Semantics Lecture Notes, MIT. http://www.phil-fak.uniduesseldorf.de/summerschool2002/fintel.pdf.
- Yatsushiro, K. 1999. Secondary predicate in Japanese revisited. In Proceedings of ESCOL ’99. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar