Skip to main content
Log in

Meaning and Use of Indefinite Expressions

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sentences containing pronouns and indefinite noun phrases can be said toexpress open propositions, propositions which display gaps to be filled.This paper addresses the question what is the linguistic content ofthese expressions, what information they can be said to provide to ahearer, and in what sense the information of a speaker can be said tosupport their utterance. We present and motivate first order notions ofcontent, update and support. The three notions are each defined in acompositional fashion and brought together within a single and coherentframework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aloni, M., 1997, “Quantification in dynamic semantics,” pp. 73–87 in Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker, M. Stokhof, and Y. Venema, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D.I., 1994, “When variables don't vary enough,” pp. 35–60 in Proceedings of SALT IV, L. Santelmann and M. Harvey, eds., Ithaca: DMLL Publications, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chastain, C., 1975, “Reference and context,” pp. 194–269 in Language, Mind, and Knowledge, K. Gunderson, ed., Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G., 1992, “Anaphora and dynamic binding,” Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P., 1993, “Existential disclosure,” Linguistics and Philosophy 16(6), 561–588. MEANING AND USE OF INDEFINITE EXPRESSIONS 193

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P., 1994, “Predicate logic with anaphora (seven inch version),” pp. 79–95 in Proceedings of SALT IV, L. Santelmann and M. Harvey, eds., Ithaca: DMLL Publications, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P., 1996, “The values of variables in dynamic semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy 19(3), 211–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker P., 2000a, “Coreference and representationalism,” pp. 287–310 in Reference and Anaphorical Relations, K. von Heusinger and U. Egli, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P., 2000b, “Support for update semantics (house version),” pp. 5–12 in Proceedings of Götalog 2000, M. Poesio and D. Traum, eds., Göteborg: Department of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, K., 1978, “Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora,” pp. 47–68 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9, Pragmatics, P. Cole, ed., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G., 1977, “Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses (1),” The Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467–536. Reprinted in: Evans, G., 1985, Collected Papers, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 76-152.

  • Evans, G., 1982, The Varieties of Reference, Oxford: Clarendon Press, edited by John McDowell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G., 1892, “Ñber Sinn und Bedeutung,” Zeitschrift für Philosophie and philosophische Kritik NF 100, 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G., 1918, “Der Gedanke. Eine logische Untersuchung,” Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 2 1, 58–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach, P.T., 1967, “Intentional identity,” Journal of Philosophy 74, 309–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbrandy, J., 1999, “Dynamic epistemic logic,” in Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. II, L.S. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbrandy, J. and Groeneveld, W., 1997, “Reasoning about information change,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6, 147–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic,” Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1), 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., and Veltman, F., 1996, “Coreference and modality,” pp. 179–213 in The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin, ed., Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” Ph.D. Thesis, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts (published in 1988 by Garland, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., 1990, “E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora,” Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2), 137–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. and Sandu, G., 1997, “Game-theoretical semantics,” pp. 361–410 in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P., 1999, “Towards a variable-free semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, T.M., 1986, Foundations and Application of Montague Grammar. Part 1: Philosophy, Framework, Computer Science, CWI Tract 19, Amsterdam: CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N., 1987, “On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification,” Ph.D. Thesis, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., 1990, “Prolegomena to a structural account of belief and other attitudes,” pp. 27–90 in Propositional Attitudes, C.A. Anderson and J. Owens, eds., Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D., 1969, “Quantifying in,” pp. 221–243 in Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W.V. Quine, D. Davidson and J. Hintikka, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S., 1972, “Naming and necessity,” pp. 254–355, 763-769 in Semantics of Natural Languages, D. Davidson and J. Hintikka, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D., 1979, “Attitudes de dicto and de se,” The Philosophical Review 88(4), 513–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R., 1974, “Universal grammar,” pp. 222–246 in Formal Philosophy. Selected Papers of Richard Montague, R. Thomason, ed., New Haven: Yale University Press (originally published in 1970, Theoria 36, 373-398). 194 P. DEKKER

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W., 1956, “Quantifiers and propositional attitudes,” Journal of Philosophy 53, 177–187. Reprinted in Quine, W.V., 1966, The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V., 1960, “Variables explained away,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104, 343–347. Reprinted in Quine, W.V., 1966, Selected Logic Papers, pp. 227-235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandu, G., 1997, “On the theory of anaphora: Dynamic predicate logic vs. game-theoretical semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 147–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R., 1998, “On the representation of context,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eijck, J., 2001, “Incremental dynamics,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 319–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooy, R., 1997, “Attitudes and changing contexts,” Ph.D. Thesis, Stuttgart: IMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, E., 1999, “Remarks on the epistemic rôle of discourse referents,” pp. 346–368 in Logic, Language and Computation II, L.S. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dekker, P. Meaning and Use of Indefinite Expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11, 141–194 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017575313451

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017575313451

Navigation