Singleton Indefinites

Journal of Semantics 19 (3):289-314 (2002)

Abstract
I investigate the possibility that the apparent unique scope‐taking abilities of indefinites can be explained in terms of quantifier domain restriction, without departing from the classical view of indefinites as existential quantifiers over individuals whose scope is syntactically constrained in the same way as other quantifiers. The key idea is that when the domain of a quantifier is reduced to a singleton set, it becomes effectively scopeless. Indefinites, on this view, are freer than other quantifiers to make use of this option. I argue that alternative accounts which put the action in the semantics or the syntax of indefinites still need a pragmatic mechanism of quantifier domain restriction, so that to demonstrate the necessity for such approaches, one needs to explain why domain restriction down to singletons is not possible. There is an intuition that indefinites have specific readings in which they are referential and where the speaker can identify the referent, but the hearer cannot. In the final section of the paper, I try to make sense of that intuition in the context of a theory in which indefinites are apt to have singleton domains. I arrive at the conclusion that it is a symptom of a more general phenomenon whereby contextual parameters can be relativized to bearers of propositional attitudes
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jos/19.3.289
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,049
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Universal Density of Measurement.Danny Fox & Martin Hackl - 2006 - Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (5):537 - 586.
Talking About Worlds.Matthew Mandelkern - forthcoming - Philosophical Perspectives 33.
Descriptions as Variables.Paolo Santorio - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 164 (1):41-59.

View all 32 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Mathematics is Megethology.David K. Lewis - 1993 - Philosophia Mathematica 1 (1):3-23.
What is a Singleton.Nick Bostrom - 2006 - Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 5 (2):48-54.
How Indefinites Choose Their Scope.Adrian Brasoveanu & Donka F. Farkas - 2011 - Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (1):1-55.
Definability and Initial Segments of C-Degrees.Robert S. Lubarsky - 1988 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (4):1070-1081.
Discourse Dynamics, Pragmatics, and Indefinites.Karen S. Lewis - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 158 (2):313-342.
System of Spheres-Based Multiple Contractions.Eduardo Fermé & Maurício D. L. Reis - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (1):29-52.
Focus and Uninformativity in Yucatec Maya Questions.Scott AnderBois - 2012 - Natural Language Semantics 20 (4):349-390.
The Elimination of Morality.Jane Singleton - 1994 - Philosophy Now 9:41-43.
Kelly Oliver, Animal Lessons: How They Teach Us to Be Human. [REVIEW]Bronwyn Singleton - 2011 - Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy/Revue canadienne de philosophie continentale 15 (1):241-245.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-09-02

Total views
20 ( #423,836 of 2,260,175 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #656,535 of 2,260,175 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature