Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Demonstratives as individual concepts

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a version of situation semantics, this article argues that bare and complex demonstratives are interpreted as individual concepts.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abney, S. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.

  • Aloni M. (2005) Individual concepts in modal predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 34: 1–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altshuler D. (2007) WCO, ACD and what they reveal about complex demonstratives. Natural Language Semantics 15: 265–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin J.L. (1961) Truth. In: Urmson J.O., Warnock G.J. (eds) Philosophical papers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 117–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach E. (1970) Problominalization. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 121–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäuerle R. (1983) Pragmatisch-semantische Aspekte der NP-Interpretation. In: Faust M., Harweg R., Lehfeldt W., Wienold G. (eds) Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Textlinguistik. Festschrift für Peter Hartmann. Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, pp 121–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman S. (1987) Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In: Blevins J., Vainikka A. (eds) Studies in semantics. Amherst, GLSA, pp 46–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg E. (2000) Complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 97: 229–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun D. (1994) Structured characters and complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 74: 193–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2002). Understanding complex demonstratives. Ms.

  • Buchanan R., Ostertag G. (2005) Has the problem of incompleteness rested on a mistake?. Mind 114: 889–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring D. (2004) Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12: 23–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring D. (2005) Binding theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Chierchia G. (1995) Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1993) A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale K., Keyser S.J. (eds) The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R. (1979) The interpretation of pronouns. In: Heny F., Schnelle H. (eds) Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the Third Gröningen Round Table. Academic Press, New York, pp 61–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell M. (1985) Structured meanings. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelberg W. (1994) Propositions, circumstances, objects. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23: 1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P. (2001a) E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9: 241–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, P. (2001b). On the semantics of pronouns and definite articles. In L. Bar-el & K. Megerdoomian (Eds.), WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 164–177). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

  • Elbourne, P. (2003). Indistinguishable participants. In P. Dekker & R. van Rooij (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 105–110). Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.

  • Elbourne P. (2005a) On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 333–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P. (2005b) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, P. (2008). The existence entailments of definite descriptions. Ms.

  • Farkas D. (1997) Evaluation indices and scope. In: Szabolcsi A. (eds) Ways of scope taking. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 183–215

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel K. (1993) Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics 1: 123–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • von Fintel K. (2004) Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 315–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox D. (2002) Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frege G. (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg M., Siegel S. (2006) Presupposition and policing in complex demonstratives. Noûs 40: 1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1990) Dynamic Montague Grammar. In: Kálmán L., Pólos L. (eds) Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp 3–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz B., Joshi A., Weinstein S. (1995) Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21: 203–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley H. (2002) WCO, ACD, and QR of DPs. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 659–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I. (1991) Artikel und Definitheit. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp 487–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1993). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. University of Tübingen Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft working paper series (SfS-Report-07-93).

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., Kratzer, A., & von Fintel, K. (1998). Introduction to intensional semantics. Class notes, MIT.

  • Higginbotham, J., & May, R. (1981). Crossing, markedness, pragmatics. In Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore de Pisa.

  • Hindley J.R., Seldin J.P. (1986) Introduction to combinators and λ-calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P. (1977). The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Jacobson, P. (1991). Bach-Peters sentences in a variable-free semantics. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 283–302). Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

  • Jacobson P. (2000) Paycheck pronouns, Bach-Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 77–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson K., Lepore E. (2002) Does syntax reveal semantics? A case study of complex demonstratives. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 17–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Kaplan D. (1989a) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989b) Afterthoughts. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 565–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen L. (1971) Definite descriptions with crossing coreference. Foundations of Language 7: 157–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne R. (1984) Connectedness and binary branching. Foris, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan E. (1972) On semantically based grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 413–461

    Google Scholar 

  • King J. (2001) Complex demonstratives. MIT Press, A quantificational account. Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitagawa, Y. (1986). Subjects in Japanese and English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Kratzer A. (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (2004). Covert quantifier restrictions in natural languages. Ms.

  • Kripke S. (1972) Naming and necessity. In: Davidson D., Harman G. (eds) Semantics of natural languages. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 253–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke S. (1979) Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. In: French P.A., Uehling T., Wettstein H. (eds) Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 6–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, W. (1979).Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

  • Larson R., Segal G. (1995) Knowledge of meaning. An introduction to semantic theory. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik H., Stowell T. (1991) Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1968) Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic. Journal of Philosophy 65: 113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link G. (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 302–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Longobardi G. (1994) Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.

  • May R. (1985) Logical form. Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • May R. (1989) Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 387–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (1993) Term limits. In: Tomberlin J.E. (eds) Philosophical perspectives 7: Logic and language. Atascadero, Ridgeview Publishing, pp 89–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (2005a) A century later. Mind 114: 809–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (2005b) Pragmatism and binding. In: Szabó Z.G. (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 165–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (2007) Heavy hands and scene-reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3: 77–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunberg G. (1979) The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 143–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunberg G. (1993) Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 1–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunberg G. (2004) Descriptive indexicals and indexical descriptions. In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 261–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee B., Rooth M. (1983) Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 362–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postal P. (1966) On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In: Dinneen F. (eds) Report on the seventeenth annual round table meeting on linguistics and language studies. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 177–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V.O. (1969) Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (1993) Direct reference. Blackwell, From language to thought. Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2005) Deixis and anaphora. In: (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 286–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C. (2002) Demonstratives as definites. In: Deemter K., Kibble R. (eds) Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation. CSLI Press, Stanford, pp 89–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C. (2003) Uniqueness in definite Noun Phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C. (2004) Pronouns as definites. In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 503–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.

  • Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman J., Moss L. (1997) Situation theory. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) The handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam/Cambridge, pp 239–309

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (1987) Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics 15: 47–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., Wilson D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (2002) Review of King 2001. The Philosophical Review 111: 605–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockwell R., Schachter P., Partee B.H. (1973) The major syntactic structures of English. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson P. (1950) On referring. Mind 59: 320–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, E., Conroy, A., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2006). Early mastery of constraints on binding and coreference. Ms.

  • Taylor B. (1980) Truth-theory for indexical languages. In: Platts M. (eds) Reference, truth and reality. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp 182–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton R., Wexler K. (1999) Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Uriagereka J. (1995) Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J. (1995) Language in action. Categories, lambdas and dynamic logic. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eijck J., Kamp H. (1997) Representing discourse in context. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam/Cambridge, pp 179–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, L. (2006). That’s that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Queen Mary, University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK

    Paul Elbourne

Authors
  1. Paul Elbourne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Elbourne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elbourne, P. Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguist and Philos 31, 409–466 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation