Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 79–134

On The Interpretation of Wide-scope Indefinites

  • Lisa Matthewson
Article
  • 239 Downloads

Abstract

This paper argues, on the basis of data from St'át'imcets (Lillooet Salish), for a theory of wide-scope indefinites which is similar, though not identical, to that proposed by Kratzer (1998). I show that a subset of S'át'imcets indefinites takes obligatory wide scope with respect to if-clauses, negation, and modals, and is unable to be distributed over by quantificational phrases. These wide-scope effects cannot be accounted for by movement, but require an analysis involving choice functions (Reinhart 1995, 1997). However, Reinhart's particular choice function analysis is unable to account for the St'át'imcets data. A Kratzer-style theory, on the other hand, accounts not only for the wide-scope effects, but also for the emergence of narrower-than-widest interpretations for indefinites which contain bound variables. I depart from Kratzer's analysis in claiming that St'át'imcets choice function indefinites are not 'specific'; the discourse context does not provide a value for the function variable. Therefore, I utilize wide- scope existential closure over choice functions rather than leaving the variables free. However, my analysis provides support for Kratzer's claim that English indefinites are ambiguous between a choice function interpretation and a quantificational interpretation, since St'át'imcets determiners overtly encode the English ambiguity. I conclude by suggesting that the proposed analysis of wide-scope indefinites may be universally valid.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abusch, D.: 1994, ‘The Scope of Indefinites’, Natural Language Semantics 2(2), 83–135.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M.: 1991, ‘On Some Subject-Object Non-Asymmetries in Mohawk’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 537–576.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M.: 1996, The Polysynthesis Parameter, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Beghelli, F., D. Ben-Shalom and A. Szabolcsi: 1996, ‘Variation, Distributivity and the Illusion of Branching’, in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Bittner, M.: 1994, Case, Scope and Binding, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Chung, S., W. Ladusaw, and J. McCloskey: 1994, ‘Sluicing and Logical Form’, Natural Language Semantics 3(3), 239–282.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, H.: 1993, ‘A Configurational Pronominal Argument Language’, Proceedings of WECOL, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, H.: 1997a, ‘Turning the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis on its Head’, paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, H.: 1997b, ‘Word Order and Scrambling in St'át'imcets’, paper presented at the 4th Annual Victoria Salish Morpho-Syntax Workshop, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, H. and H. Demirdache: in prep., ‘VOS and VSO’, to appear in A. Carnie and E. Guilefoyle (eds.), VSO Languages.Google Scholar
  11. Demirdache, H.: 1997a, ‘Condition C’, in H. Bennis, P. Pica, and J. Rooryck (eds.), Atomism and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Demirdache, H.: 1997b, ‘On Descriptions in (Lillooet) Salish’, paper presented at the Colloque de Syntaxe et de Sémantique de Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Demirdache, H.: to appear, ‘On the Temporal Location of Predication Times: The Role of Determiners in St'át'imcets (Lillooet Salish)’, Proceedings of WCCFL 16, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  14. Demirdache, H.: in prep., ‘On Narrow Scope Indefinites’, ms., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  15. Demirdache, H. and L. Matthewson: 1995, ‘Quantifier Raising and Topic-Focus in St'át'imcets’, paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  16. Demirdache, H. and L. Matthewson: 1997, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Distributivity in St'át'imcets’, paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
  17. Demirdache, H. and L. Matthewson: in prep., ‘On Distributivity: Evidence from St'át'imcets (Lillooet Salish)’, to appear in S. Allen, R.-M. Déchaine, C. Reinholtz, and L. Saxon (eds.), Arguments and Adjuncts.Google Scholar
  18. Demirdache, H., D. Gardiner, P. Jacobs, and L. Matthewson: 1994, ‘The Case for D-quantification in Salish: ‘All’ in St'át'imcets, Squamish and Secwepemctsín’, Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, pp. 145–203. Salish Kootenai College, Pablo, Montana.Google Scholar
  19. Enø, M.: 1991, ‘The Semantics of Specificity’, Linguistic Inquiry 22(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  20. Farkas, D.: 1981, ‘Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands’, Proceedings of CLS 17, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar
  21. Fodor, J. D. and I. A. Sag: 1982, ‘Referential and Quantificational Indefinites’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3), 355–398.Google Scholar
  22. Gardiner, D., L. Matthewson, and H. Davis: 1993, ‘A Preliminary Report on Word Order in Northern Interior Salish’, Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, pp. 139–157. University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  23. Hawkins, J.: 1991, ‘On (In)definite Articles: Implicatures and (Un)grammaticality Prediction’, Journal of Linguistics 27, 405–442.Google Scholar
  24. Heim, I.: 1991, ‘Artikel und Definitheit’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung, pp. 487–535. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  25. Heim, I., H. Lasnik, and R. May: 1991, ‘Reciprocity and Plurality’, Linguistic Inquiry 22(1), 63–101.Google Scholar
  26. Jelinek, E.: 1984, ‘Case and Configurationality’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 39–76.Google Scholar
  27. Jelinek, E.: 1995, ‘Quantification in Straits Salish’, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, pp. 487–540. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Jelinek, E. and R. Demers: 1994, ‘Predicates and Pronominal Arguments in Straits Salish’, Language 70, 697–736.Google Scholar
  29. Kadmon, N.: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published by Garland, New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  30. King, J.: 1988, ‘Are Indefinite Descriptions Ambiguous?’, Philosophical Studies 53, 417–440.Google Scholar
  31. Kratzer, A.: 1998, ‘Scope or Pseudo-Scope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?’, in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events in Grammar, pp. 163–196. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  32. Lin, J.-W.: 1996, Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published by GLSA.Google Scholar
  33. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice Theoretical Approach’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language, pp. 302–323. de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  34. Ludlow, P. and S. Neale: 1991, ‘Indefinite Descriptions: In Defence of Russell’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14(2), 171–202.Google Scholar
  35. Matthewson, L.: in press, Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish, Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.Google Scholar
  36. Matthewson, L. and H. Davis: 1995, ‘The Structure of DP in St'át'imcets (Lillooet Salish)’, Papers for the 30th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, pp. 54–68. University of Victoria, Victoria.Google Scholar
  37. Matthewson, L., H. Davis, and D. Gardiner: 1993, ‘Coreference in Northern Interior Salish’, Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, pp. 217–232. University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  38. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  39. Reinhart, T.: 1995, Interface Strategies, OTS working papers, TL–95-002.Google Scholar
  40. Reinhart, T.: 1997, ‘Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335–397.Google Scholar
  41. Roberts, C.: 1987, Modal Subordination, Anaphora, and Distributivity, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  42. Romero, M.: 1997, ‘Choice Functions for Which-Phrases and Wide Scope Indefinites’, paper presented at MIT.Google Scholar
  43. Ruys, E.: 1992, The Scope of Indefinites, PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. Published in the OTS Dissertation Series, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  44. Ruys, E.: 1995, ‘Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon’, ms., Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  45. Scha, R.: 1981, ‘Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification’, in J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof, and T. M. V. Janssen (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. van Eijk, J.: 1997, The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  47. van Eijk, J. and L. Williams: 1981, Cúystwi Malh Ucwalmícwts, Ts'zil Publishing House, Mount Currie.Google Scholar
  48. van Geenhoven, V.: 1996, Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions, SfS-Report–03-96, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  49. Winter, Y.: 1997, ‘Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 399–467.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Matthewson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA; E-mail

Personalised recommendations