Karen Lewis (Philos Stud, 158:313–342, 2012) argues that recognizing the importance of plans helps settle a debate regarding the semantics and pragmatics of indefinites. More specifically, Lewis argues against the dynamic approach (e.g., Kamp (In Groenendijk et al., Formal Methods in the Study of Language, pp. 277–322, Mathematics Center, Amsterdam, 1981), Heim (The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1982), Groenendijk and Stokhof (Linguist Philos, 14:39–100, 1991), Kamp and Reyle (From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993), and Asher and Lascarides (Logics of Conversation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)), according to which indefinite expressions are subject to a semantic Novelty condition. Drawing on data of the so-called summary uses, she claims that Novelty is best analyzed as a pragmatic, cancelable implicature. This chapter throws significant doubt on Lewis’ analysis. Not only is her objection in large part a misreading of dynamic semantics, but the proposed pragmatic account offers no real explanation of even the alleged counterexamples. Once we consider a wider range of linguistic phenomena involving indefinites, the verdict is on the side of the dynamic approach.
KeywordsLocal Plan Conversational Context Discourse Referent File Card Plan Recognition
The chapter benefits greatly from discussions with Josh Dever, Ray Buchanan, and Hans Kamp. I am also thankful for the very helpful comments from Kiki Linton Wang, as well as feedback from the audience at the IEAS conference on Language and Action. The usual disclaimer applies.
- Anette, F., & Kamp. H. (1997). On context dependence in modal constructions. In A. Lawson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT VII (pp. 151–168). Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
- Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Asher, N., & Pogodalla, S. (2010). A Montagovian treatment of modal subordination. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 20 (pp. 387–405). Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
- Beaver, D. I., Roberts, C., Simons, M., & Tonhauser, J. (2010). What projects and why. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 20 (pp. 309–327). Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
- Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
- Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In P. Portner & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Formal semantics: The essential readings (pp. 164–189). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk et al. (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematics Center.Google Scholar
- Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar