Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 385–434 | Cite as

Situation economy

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Intensionality Modality Situations Pronouns Variables Economy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benveniste E. (1966) Problémes de linguistique générale. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Bittner M. (1994) Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(1): 53–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia G. (1998) Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4): 339–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky N. (1989) Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 43–74Google Scholar
  7. Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. Diesing M. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Fox D. (1999) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeze R. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gazdar G. (1980) A cross-categorial semantics for coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 3(3): 407–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackendoff R. (1977) X′ syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Kamp H. (1971) Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria 37: 227–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kayne R. (2000) Parameters and universals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Keenan E., Faltz L. (1985) Boolean semantics for natural language. Reidel, DodrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Keshet, E. 2008. Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto distinction, PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  20. Kratzer A. (1996) Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon 33: 109–137Google Scholar
  21. Kratzer, A. 2007. Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-semantics/.
  22. Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13(4): 317–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landman F. (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, MaldenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Magri, G. 2006. The blindness hypothesis and individual level predicates. In Proceedings of SALT 16. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Milsark, G. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Milsark G. (1977) Towards the explanation of certain peculiarities of existential sentences in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29Google Scholar
  28. Moro A. (1997) The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Musan R. (1997) On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8(3): 173–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Pylkkänen, M. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Pylkkänen M. (2008) Introducing arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Rapoport T. (1999) Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language 75(4): 653–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reinhart T. (1995) Interface strategies. Utrecht, OTS Working PapersGoogle Scholar
  38. Sauerland U. (2000) Syntactic economy and quantifier Raising. University of Tübingen, ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  39. Schultze-Berndt E., Himmelmann N. (2004) Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 8(1): 59–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. von Fintel, K., and I. Heim. 2002. Intensional Semantics Lecture Notes, MIT. http://www.phil-fak.uniduesseldorf.de/summerschool2002/fintel.pdf.
  41. Winter Y. (1996) A unified semantic treatment of singular NP coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(4): 337–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yatsushiro, K. 1999. Secondary predicate in Japanese revisited. In Proceedings of ESCOL ’99. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations