Advertisement

Why Indefinites?

  • Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin
  • Claire Beyssade
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 85)

Abstract

The chapter contains a brief overview of the main arguments in favor of the hypothesis that indefinite DPs are neither referential nor quantificational expressions, but rather a third type of DP. We then present the various analyses that can be found in the formal semantics literature over the past 30 years, which treat indefinite DPs as free variables, choice functions, Skolem terms or properties. We then attempt to define the main semantic properties of indefinite DPs and finally we present the interpretation problems raised by this class of DPs.

Keywords

Choice Function Generalize Quantifier Existential Quantifier Discourse Referent Existential Closure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abusch, D. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attal, P. 1976. A propos de l’indéfini des: Problèmes de représentation sémantique. Le français moderne 44(2): 126–142.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J., and R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2): 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beghelli, F., and T. Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolcsi, 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, G.N. 1977a. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung, S., and W. Ladusaw. 2003. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1997a. Types of predicates and the representation of existential readings. In Proceedings of SALT VII, ed. A. Lawson, 117–134. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1997b. Classes de prédicats, distribution des indéfinis et la distinction thétique-catégorique. Le Gré des Langues 12: 58–97.Google Scholar
  10. Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and C. Beyssade. 2004. Définir les indéfinis. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
  11. Farkas, D. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Proceedings of the Chicago linguistic society, vol. 7, 59–66. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Farkas, D. 1997a. Dependent Indefinites. In Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics, ed. F. Corblin, D. Godard, and J.-M. Marandin, 243–268. Berne: Peter Lang Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Farkas, D. 1997b. Evaluation indices and scope. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolcsi, 183–215. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farkas, D. 2001. Dependent indefinites and direct scope. In Logical perspectives on language and information, ed. C. Condoravdi and G. Renardel, 41–72. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Farkas, D., and Y. Sugioka. 1983. Restrictive if/when clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(2): 225–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor, J.D., and I.A. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, language and meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gillon, B.S. 1996. Collectivity and distributivity internal to English noun phrases. Language Sciences 18(1–2): 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1988, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, I., and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and discourse representation. In Formal methods in the study of language, ed. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  22. Keenan, E.L. 1987. A semantic definition of indefinite NP. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, 287–317. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Keenan, E.L. 1996. The semantics of determiners. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 42–63. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Keenan, E.L., and J. Stavi. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kratzer, A. 1988. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In ed. Krifka, 247–284.Google Scholar
  26. Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The generic book, ed. G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ladusaw, W. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory IV, ed. M. Harvey and L. Santelmann, 220–229. Ithaca: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, D. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language, ed. E.L. Keenan, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice theoretic approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bauerle, C. Schwartze, and A. von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu, F.H. 1990. Scope and dependency in English and Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  31. May, R. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. McNally, L. 1995a. Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties. In ed. G. Morrill and R. Oehrle, 197–222.Google Scholar
  33. McNally, L. 1995b. Stativity and theticity. Columbus: Ms, Center for Cognitive Science, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  34. McNally, L. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 353–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNally, L., and V. van Geenhoven. 1998. Redefining the weak/strong distinction. Ms, Universitat Pompeu Fabra & Max Planck Institut Nijmegen, Barcelona/Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  36. Milsark, G. 1977. Towards the explanation of certain peculiarities of existential sentences in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar
  37. Montague, R. 1974. Formal philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague. Edited by R.H. Thomason, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mostowski, A. 1957. On a generalization of quantifiers. Fundamenta Mathematicae 44: 12–36.Google Scholar
  39. Partee, B.H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof, 115–144. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, 98–130. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Reinhart, T. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Reinhart, T. 1997a. Quantifier scope. How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reinhart, T. 1997b. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Natural Language Semantics 6(1): 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwarzschild, R. 1992. Types of plural individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 641–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steedman, M. 2003. Scope alternation and the syntax/semantics interface. Paris: CSSP.Google Scholar
  46. Steedman, M. 2006. Surface-compositional scope-alternation without existential quantifiers. Ms available on http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/steedman/papers.html.
  47. Szabolcsi, A., ed. 1997. Ways of scope taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  48. van Geenhoven, V. 1996. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Ph.D. dissertation, Tübingen. Published in 1998 by CSLI.Google Scholar
  49. Winter, Y. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin
    • 1
  • Claire Beyssade
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Linguistique FormelleUniversity of Paris 7 UMR 7110-CNRSParisFrance
  2. 2.Jean Nicod InstituteUMR 8129 CNRS, ENS, EHESSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations