Indefinite Topics
D. Cresti, 1995
In this dissertation I investigate the phenomenon of what have come to be known as ‘specific’ indefinites.
The atypical scope- and discourse-related properties of this kind of noun phrases have led researches to posit a variety of recent analyses. I show that nothing special needs to be said about specific indefinites once we assume a pre-dynamic model of natrual language which takes as a starting point the proposals of Kamp (1981) and Heim (1982) that indefinites are not inherently quantificational.
One core assumption of this dissertation is that indefinites that are interpreted as specific (or that otherwise exhibit atypical scopal properties) are always topic marked in the sense of von Fintel (1994) (but see also Diesing 1991). The phenomenon of topic marking is quite independent of specific indefinites and is generally the cause of existence presuppositions associated with quantificational noun phrases – which are argues not to be intrinsically presuppositional.
The presuppositions associated with topic marking are shown to follow the same projection patterns as standard presuppositional expressions; thus the semantic and pragmatic properties of specific indefinites are expected to exhibit a parallel behavior with respect to, e.g., presuppositions of the kind generated by definite noun phrases. The model proposed thus subsumes the apparently puzzling scope taking options of indefinites under an independently available theory of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. No recourse to task-specific devices is assumed.
The model proposed assumes a maximally constrained theory of syntax. This it is compatible with theories which assume the clause-boundedness of quantifier raising, including those models which assume that there is no independently occuring quantifier raising operation.
Thesis Supervisor: Irene Heim
Title: Professor, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
<br/>
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 8
1 Are indefinites ambiguous? 8
2 Formalities 17
2 Wide Scope Indefinites 24
1 Fodor and Sag (1981) 24
2 Indefinites are Variables 31
3 The problem of weak truth conditions 42
3.1 Abusch’s proposal 46
3.2 Problems with Abusch’s proposal 52
3.2.1 Indefinites and weak crossover 53
3.2.2 Functional readings of indefinites 56
3.2.3 Specific indefinites and bound variables 65
3 Can Wide Scope Indefinites be Interpreted In Situ? 68
1 Hypothesis 0: Quantifier restrictions cannot be empty 68
1.1 A Strawsonian Approach 70
1.2 Viability of H0 75
1.2.1 Quantificational determiners 76
1.2.2 Modal and adverbial quantifiers 80
1.2.3 Indefinites in Mon environments 84
2 Hypothesis 0.1: Association with Focus 89
2.1 Is negation Focus sensitive? 93
2.2 Viability of H0.1 98
3 Hypothesis 1: Wide scope indefinites are topics 103
3.1 von Fintel’s topic anaphors 104
3.2 New topics 108
3.3 Truth conditions under H1 117
4 Presupposition Projection and Topicality 134
1 Introduction 134
2 Cancelability and other anti-presuppositional effects 139
3 Presupposition projection: the data 144
3.1 Object of a transitive verb 145
3.2 Negation 146
3.3 Assume, believe, convince 150
3.4 Restriction of a quantifier 157
3.5 Nuclear scope of a quantifier 159
4 A sketch of a possible model 164
4.1 The slash operator 165
4.2 How topics fit in 173
4.3 Binding into presuppositions 181
4.3.1 Local presuppositions: If John has a child 181
4.3.2 The case of manage 184
4.4 Binding into topics 188
4.4.1 Local topics: Unless you own a donkey 189
4.4.2 Functional readings of indefinites 195
4.4.3 Every xi shares this topic 198
5 Concluding remarks 201
References 203