How indefinites choose their scope

Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (1):1-55 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The paper proposes a novel solution to the problem of scope posed by natural language indefinites that captures both the difference in scopal freedom between indefinites and bona fide quantifiers and the syntactic sensitivity that the scope of indefinites does nevertheless exhibit. Following the main insight of choice functional approaches, we connect the special scopal properties of indefinites to the fact that their semantics can be stated in terms of choosing a suitable witness. This is in contrast to bona fide quantifiers, the semantics of which crucially involves relations between sets of entities. We provide empirical arguments that this insight should not be captured by adding choice/Skolem functions to classical first-order logic, but in a semantics that follows Independence-Friendly Logic, in which scopal relations involving existentials are part of the recursive definition of truth and satisfaction. These scopal relations are resolved automatically as part of the interpretation of existentials. Additional support for this approach is provided by dependent indefinites, a cross-linguistically common class of special indefinites that can be straightforwardly analyzed in our semantic framework

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,676

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why indefinites can escape scope islands.Edgar Onea - 2015 - Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (3):237-267.
Semantics with Dependent Types for Indefinites.Justyna Grudzińska - 2016 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 46 (1):173-192.
Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites.Yoad Winter - 1997 - Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (4):399-467.
Licensing of PPI indefinites: Movement or pseudoscope?Vincent Homer & Rajesh Bhatt - 2019 - Natural Language Semantics 27 (4):279-321.
A unified approach to split scope.Klaus Abels & Luisa Martí - 2010 - Natural Language Semantics 18 (4):435-470.
The scope of indefinites.Dorit Abusch - 1993 - Natural Language Semantics 2 (2):83-135.
The scope of indefinites: an experimental investigation. [REVIEW]Tania Ionin - 2010 - Natural Language Semantics 18 (3):295-350.
On The Interpretation of Wide-scope Indefinites.Lisa Matthewson - 1998 - Natural Language Semantics 7 (1):79-134.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-10-16

Downloads
132 (#166,431)

6 months
15 (#200,807)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Composing alternatives.Ivano Ciardelli, Floris Roelofsen & Nadine Theiler - 2017 - Linguistics and Philosophy 40 (1):1-36.
The scope of alternatives: indefiniteness and islands.Simon Charlow - 2020 - Linguistics and Philosophy 43 (4):427-472.
Independence friendly logic.Tero Tulenheimo - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The dynamics of negative concord.Jeremy Kuhn - 2021 - Linguistics and Philosophy 45 (1):153-198.
Covert distributivity in algebraic event semantics.Lucas Champollion - 2016 - Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (15):1-66.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Assertion.Robert Stalnaker - 2013 - In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Peterborough, CA: Broadview Press. pp. 179.
Assertion.Robert Stalnaker - 1978 - Syntax and Semantics (New York Academic Press) 9:315-332.
Restrictions on Quantifier Domains.Kai von Fintel - 1994 - Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

View all 35 references / Add more references