Abstract
This paper introduces an interesting class of predicates that come in pairs, so-called total and partial predicates. It will be shown that such predicates contribute to an explanation for the weak and strong interpretations of donkey sentences. This paper proposes that the phenomenon of weak and strong interpretations is real, and that whether a sentence receives the weak or the strong interpretation depends on the predicate in the nuclear scope of the sentence. It also proposes that sum individuals are calculated at some level before the nuclear scope of the sentence is processed. Once the sum individuals are calculated, it will be decided whether the nuclear scope is true of at least one element of the sum individual (weak interpretation) or true of all elements of the sum individual (strong interpretation).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker, C.: 1992, ‘Proportional Ambiguity’, ms., Center for Cognitive Science, Ohio State University. Published in Proceedings of SALT III (1993).
Gruber, J.: 1965, Studies in Lexical Relations, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington. Reprinted as J. Gruber, Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1976.
Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kadmon, N.: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.
Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.
Kanazawa, M.: 1994, ‘Weak and Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inferences in a Dynamic Setting’, Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 109–158.
Kang, Y.: 1994, Weak and Strong Interpretations of Quantifiers and Definite NPs in English and Korean, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Krifka, M. 1992, ‘A Framework for Focus-Sensitive Quantification’, in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of SALT II, OSUWPL vol. 40, Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, pp. 215–236.
Krifka, M.: 1993, ‘Focus, Quantification, and Dynamic Interpretation’, ms., University of Texas at Austin.
Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretic Approach’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 302–323.
Moltmann, F.: 1991, ‘Mereology and the Part Relation Relevant in the Semantics of Natural Language: A Situation-Dependent Notion of Part’, ms., MIT.
Neale, S.: 1990a, ‘Descriptive Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, The Journal of Philosophy 87(3), 113–150.
Neale, S.: 1990b, Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Partee, B.: 1984, ‘Nominal and Temporal Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 243–286.
Rooth, M.: 1987, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 237–268.
Rossdeutscher, A. and H. Kamp: 1992, Remarks on Lexical Structure, DRS-Construction and Lexically Driven Inferences, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Universität Stuttgart.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I'm very grateful to Manfred Krifka, Ileana Comorovski, Lee Baker, Stephen Wechsler, John Bordie, and two anonymous NALS reviewers for discussion and advice.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yoon, Y. Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations. Nat Lang Seman 4, 217–236 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372820
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372820