The atypical scope- and discourse-related properties of this kind of noun phrases have led researchers 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 natural language which takes as a starting point the proposals of Kamp (1981) and Heim (1982) that indefi- nites are not inherently quantificational.
One core assumption of this dissertation is that indefinites which are interpreted as specific (or which 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 exis- tence presuppositions associated with quantificational noun phrases-- which are argued not to be intrinsically presuppositional.
The presuppositions associated with topic marking are shown to follow the same projections 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., presup- positions 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. Thus it is compatible with theories which assume the clause-boundedness of quantifier raising, including those models which assume that there is no independently occurring quantifier raising operation.
Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Irene Heim.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Abstract ............................................................. 2
Acknowledgments ...................................................... 4
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 8
1. Are Indefinites Ambiguous? .................................. 8
2. Formalities ................................................. 17
II. 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
III. 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 H_0 ...................................... 75
1.2.1. Quantificational Determiners .................. 76
1.2.2. Modal and Adverbial Quantifiers ............... 80
1.2.3. Indefinites in Mon:v Environments ............. 84
2. Hypothesis 0.1.: Association with Focus ..................... 89
2.1. Is Negation Focus Sensitive? .......................... 93
2.2. Viability of H_0.1 .................................... 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. Truthconditions Under H_1 .............................117
IV. 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 x_1 Shares This Topic ...................198
5. Concluding Remarks ..........................................201
References ...........................................................202