Abstract
In contexts where indefinite DPs co-occur with quantificational DPs, intensional predicates, negation or quantificational adverbs, they generate interpretive effects that have been traditionally analyzed in terms of scope. In this chapter, we show that so-called scope effects in fact depend on the denotation of indefinite DPs: weak indefinites take obligatory narrow scope, intermediate and wide scope being allowed only for individual-denoting indefinites. We propose to analyze scope interpretive effects in terms of dependency relations and we show that only referential indefinites (i.e. e-type indefinites) can be dependent. We represent dependent indefinites as Skolem terms, the reference of which co-varies with the quantificational DPs on which they depend. As for e-type indefinite DPs which are not dependent, they are specific and function as constants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In this chapter we will only examine the scope of a DP with respect to other DPs.
- 2.
The scope ambiguities triggered by the interaction between tense or modality on the one hand and DPs on the other hand could also be analyzed in terms of dependencies. But in these cases, the DPs would be dependent on times and worlds.
- 3.
- 4.
Let us warn the reader that we do not endorse Fodor and Sag’s view that the narrow scope reading of indefinites depends on their quantificational status. As made clear below, our proposal is that narrow scope indefinites are either weak or dependent indefinites.
- 5.
Having no scope means getting wide scope interpretation without giving rise to any kind of dependency.
- 6.
S > O and O > S indicate wide scope of the subject over the object and wide scope of the object over the subject, respectively. *O > S says that the object cannot scope over the subject.
- 7.
Inverse scope corresponds to a situation where the order of interpretation of two DPs is inverted with respect to their order in surface structure.
- 8.
Although the inverse scope reading can be hard to obtain, this interpretation is available both in English and French. Note that when the sentence contains indefinite pronouns like quelqu’un ‘somebody’ or personne ‘nobody’, the ambiguity is salient, as made explicit in (i′) and (ii″)
(i) Quelqu’un relira chaque papier soumis. Somebody will read each submitted paper.
(i′) One and the same person will read each of the submitted papers.
(i″) Each submitted paper will be reviewed by somebody, but not necessarily by the same person.
- 9.
The type of interpretation induced by câte is easier to grasp in the example in which câte attaches to the object DP.
(i)
Fetele vor citi câte o poezie.
the girls will read cate a poem
‘The girls will each read a poem’
- 10.
In contemporary Romanian, object clitic-doubling is obligatory with objects marked by prepositional accusative.
- 11.
- 12.
Pluralized predicates should be distinguished from collective predicates of the type meet.
- 13.
This generalization follows from the definition of the pluralization operation itself: since the predicate is derived by pluralization from the corresponding singular predicate, each of the individuals in any of the groups in the denotation of the pluralized predicate necessarily satisfies the corresponding singular predicate.
- 14.
Skolem functions were initially used in logic in order to eliminate existential quantifiers in the scope of a universal quantifier, the existential quantifier that binds the Skolem function itself always takes largest scope (over the universal quantifier). Thus, the formulas in (i) and in (ii) are truth-conditionally equivalent:
(i)
∀x ∃y (φ(x,y))
(ii)
∃f ∀x (φ(x,f(x)))
In (i), y depends on x because the existential quantifier ∃ binding y is within the scope of the universal quantifier ∀ that binds x. In (ii), this dependency is expressed in functional terms: y is replaced by f(x).
- 15.
In the following formula, which refines (29′), the range and the domain of the function are specified in the first conjunct:
(i)
∃f [∀x∀y [(professor(x) Ù f(x) = y) → novel(y))] Ù ∀x∀z [(professor(x) Ù student(z) read(z,f(x))) → rewarded(x,z)])
References
Abusch, D. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83–136.
Beghelli, F. 1995. The phrase-structure of quantifier scope. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
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.
Ben-Shalom, D. 1993. Object wide scope and semantic trees. Los Angeles: MS, UCLA.
Corblin, F. 1987. Indéfini, défini et démonstratif. Constructions linguistiques de la référence. Genève: Droz.
Corblin, F. 1997. Les indéfinis: Variables et quantificateurs. Langue Française 116: 8–32.
Dekker, P. 2002. A pragmatic view upon indefinites. Ms.
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1995. On the denotation and scope of indefinites, vol. 5, 67–114. Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Venice.
Engdahl, E. 1986. Constituent questions. Dordrecht: Reidel.
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.
Farkas, D. 1985. Intensional descriptions and the Romance subjunctive. New York: Garland.
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.
Farkas, D. 1997b. Evaluation indices and scope. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolcsi, 183–215. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.
Farkas, D., and A. Giannakidou. 1996. How clause-bounded is the scope of universals? In Proceedings of SALT VI, ed. T. Galloway and J. Spence et al., 35–52. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.
Fodor, J.D., and I.A. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398.
Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1988, Garland, New York.
Hintikka, J. 1974. Quantifiers vs quantification theory. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 153–177.
Hintikka, J. 1986. The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2): 331–336.
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.
Kamp, H., and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
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.
Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there widescope indefinites? In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kratzer, A. 2007. On the plurality of verbs. In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, ed. J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, and M. Schäfer, 269–300. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Krifka, M. 1992a. Definite NPs aren’t quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 23(1): 156–164.
Krifka, M. 1992b. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical matters, ed. I. Sag and A. Szabolsci, 29–53. Stanford: CSLI.
Landman, F. 1989a. Groups I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5): 559–605.
Landman, F. 1989b. Groups II. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6): 723–744.
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.
May, R. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
May, R. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Reinhart, T. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers, Utrecht.
Ruys, E. 1992. The scope of indefinites. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.
Scha, R. 1981. Distributive, collective, and cumulative quantification. In Formal methods in the study of language, ed. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 483–512. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.
Steedman, M. 2003. Scope alternation and the syntax/semantics interface. Paris: CSSP.
Winter, Y. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., Beyssade, C. (2012). The Scope of Indefinites. In: Redefining Indefinites. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 85. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3002-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3002-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-3001-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-3002-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)