Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identificational sentences

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper gives a novel analysis of identificational sentences such as This is Mary, That is a beautiful woman, or This looks like Mary based on the notion of a trope. On that analysis, bare demonstratives in the subject position of an identificational sentence involve reference to a trope as the direct object of perception and the sentence itself states the identification of the bearer of the trope. The analysis also accounts for the semantics of certain specificational sentences such as What John saw was Mary, as well as apparent statements of relative identity such as This is the same lump of clay, but not the same statue as that.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beyssade, C., and C. Sorin. 2005. A syntax-based analysis of predication. In Proceedings of SALT 15, ed. E. Georgala and I. Howell, 44–61. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birner, B., J.P. Kaplan, and G. Ward. 2007. Functional compositionality and the interaction of discourse constraints. Language 83(2): 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brogaart, B. 2010. Do ‘looks’-reports reflect the content of perception? Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.

  • Caponigro, I., and D. Heller. 2007. The non-concealed nature of free relatives: Implications for connectivity in specificational sentences. In Direct compositionality, ed. C. Barker and P. Jacobson, 237–267. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. 1991. Cases of really direct reference: Perception or ostention. Handout of a talk given at SALT 1, April 19–21, 1991, Cornell University.

  • Den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Dikken, M., A. Meinunger, and C. Wilder. 2000. Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54: 41–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, H. 2002. Relative identity. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relative-identity.

  • Dummett, M. 1973. Frege. Philosophy of language. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. 1981. The interpretation of Frege’s philosophy. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, K. 2003. The non-identity of a thing with its matter. Mind 112: 195–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geach, P. 1957. Mental acts. New York: Routledge and Kegan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach, P. 1962. Reference and generality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach, P. 1972. Identity. In Logic matters, ed. P. Geach, 238–246. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1982. Semantic analysis of wh complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 175–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. 1973. Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorne, J. 2003. Identity. In The Oxford handbook of metaphysics, ed. M. Loux and D. Zimmermann, 99–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heal, J. 1997. Indexical predicates and their uses. Mind 106: 619–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Heller, D. 2005. Identity and information: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of specificational sentences. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.

  • Heller, D., and L. Wolter. 2008. That is Rosa. Identificational sentences and intensional predication. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 12, ed. A. Grønn, 226–240. Oslo: University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heycock, C., and A. Kroch. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface levels. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, F.R. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P. 1994. Binding connectivity in copula sentences. In Proceedings of SALT 4, ed. M. Harvey and L. Santelmann, 161–178. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. E. Bach et al., 451–487. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and representation. In Truth, interpretation and information, ed. J. Groenendijk et al., 4–41. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. 1978. The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. 2010. Demonstrative thought. Mind and Language 25(2): 169–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, J. 1980. The particularization of attributes. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58: 102–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, E.J. 1998. The possibility of metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, E.J. 2007. Sortals and the individuation of objects. Mind and Language 22(5): 514–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, E.J. 2008. Tropes and perception. In Tropes, universals and the philosophy of mind: Essays at the boundary of ontology and philosophical psychology, ed. S. Gozzano and F. Orilia, 175–192. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen, L. 2004. Specifying who: On the structure, meaning, use of specificational copula sentences. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Moltmann, F. 1992. Reciprocals and same/different. Towards a semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 411–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, F. 2009. Degree structure as trope structure. A trope-based approach to the semantics of positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 51–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moro, A, 1997. The raising of predicates and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. 1986. Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. In Proceedings of NELS 16, ed. S. Berman et al., 354–366. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. 1970. The same F. The Philosophical Review 79(2): 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W.V.O. 1964. Review of reference and generality. The Philosophical Review 73: 100–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labour is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M. 2005. Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 687–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, P. 2003. Clausal equations (A note on the connectivity problem). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 157–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnieder, B. 2004. A note on particularized qualities and bearer-uniqueness. Ratio 17: 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit, Y. 1999. Connectivity in specificational sentences. Natural Language Semantics 7: 299–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D.C. 1953. On the elements of being. Review of Metaphysics 7: 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. 1983. Syntactic vs. semantic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woltersdorff, N. 1970. On universals. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IHPST, 13 rue du Four, 75006, Paris, France

    Friederike Moltmann

Authors
  1. Friederike Moltmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Friederike Moltmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moltmann, F. Identificational sentences. Nat Lang Semantics 21, 43–77 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9091-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9091-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation