Certain Presuppositions and Some Intermediate Readings, and Vice Versa

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 92)

Abstract

The paper discusses intermediate out-of-island readings of some and a certain indefinites within the choice-functional (CF) framework. Chierchia (2001) showed that certain readings of sentences with indefinites in the CF framework require existential closure of CF variables in the immediate scope of negation rather than Kratzer-style Skolemization of the CF. However, Schwarz (2001) noticed that while some indefinites exhibit readings of that kind, a certain indefinites do not seem to. The current paper first shows how to account for Schwarz’s generalization using simple presuppositional CF analyses for the relevant indefinite determiners. Then it looks more closely at the data concerning a certain and concludes that Schwarz’s generalization is actually not as clear-cut. A more sophisticated analysis for a certain, motivated by its properties not directly connected to exceptional scope-taking, is proposed. A suggestion is made regarding how to explain both the ability of a certain indefinites to give rise to readings Schwarz claimed they cannot give rise to, and at the same time avoid overgeneration of such readings.

References

  1. Abusch, D. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 83–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breheny, R. 2003. Exceptional-scope indefinites and domain restriction. In Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung VII, Arbeitspapiere des Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, vol. 114, ed. M. Weisgerber, 38–52. Konstanz: Universität KonstanzGoogle Scholar
  3. Chierchia, J. 2001. A puzzle about indefinites. In Semantic interfaces, ed. C. Cechetto, G. Chierchia, and T.M. Guasti, 51–89. Stanford: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Cresti, D. 1995. Indefinite topics. Ph.D. thesis: MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Ebert, C., C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer. (this volume). The interpretation of the German specificity markers bestimmt and gewiss. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 31–74. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Endriss, C. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena, Studies in linguistics and philosophy, vol. 86. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Farkas, D. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Proceedings of the 17th Chicago linguistics society, Ithaca, 36–55. Cornell: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Farkas, D. 2002. Varieties of indefinites. In Proceedings of SALT 12, Ithaca, ed. B. Jackson, 59–83. Cornell: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, J.D., and I. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3): 355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geurts, B. 2010. Specific indefinites, presupposition and scope. In Presuppositions and discourse, Current research in semantics/pragmatics interface, vol. 21, ed. R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle, and T.E. Zimmermann, 125–158. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, J.A., and C. Potts. 2009. Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6): 523–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, I., H. Lasnik, and R. May. 1991. Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1): 63–101.Google Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J. 1986. The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2): 331–336.Google Scholar
  16. Ionin, T. (this volume). Pragmatic variation among specificity markers. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 75–704. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal methods in the study of language, Mathematical centre tracts, vol. 135, J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre. Reprinted in Truth, Interpretation, Information (GRASS 2), ed. Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof, 1984, 1–41, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  18. Kamp, H., and A. Bende-Farkas. 2001. Indefinites and binding: From specificity to incorporation, Lecture notes. In ESSLLI 01, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  19. Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Langaker, R. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume II, descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, F. (this volume). Specificity markers and nominal exclamatives in french. In Different kinds of specificity across languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92, eds. C. Ebert, and S. Hinterwimmer, 11–30. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Reinhart, T. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4), 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodman, R. 1976. Scope phenomena, “movement transformations”, and relative clauses. In Montague grammar, ed. B.H. Partee, 165–176. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Ruys, E. 1992. The scope of Indefinites. Ph.D. thesis: Utrecht University. Published in the OTS Dissertation Series, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Schlenker, P. (1998). A note on Skolem functions and the scope of indefinites. Talk at NELS 28.Google Scholar
  26. Schlenker, P. 2004. Scopal independence: On branching and wide scope readings of indefinites and disjunctions. An earlier and longer version of the paper published in 2006 in Journal of Semantics in 2006. Available at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/schlenker/Indefinites-Long.pdf.
  27. Schwarz, B. 2001. Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. Ms., Stuttgart University.Google Scholar
  28. Schwarz, B. 2004. Indefinites in verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szabolcsi, A. 2004. Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2): 409–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Geenhoven, V. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Winter, Y. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4): 399–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yanovich, I. 2005. Choice-functional series of indefinite pronouns and Hamblin semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 15, Ithaca, 309–326. Cornell: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations