Article published in:
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 45–72

Epistemic and scopal properties of some indefinites

This paper experimentally examines the behavior of English some indefinites, addressing the following research questions. (i) How do singular some indefinites behave with respect to scopal (non-)specificity? (ii) How do singular some indefinites pattern with respect to epistemic (non-)specificity? And (iii) Does stress (or lack thereof) on some influence the behavior of some indefinites with respect to epistemic and/or scopal (non-)specificity, and if so, how? The findings of two experimental studies with adult native English speakers indicate that some indefinites take long-distance scope more readily than a indefinites, and carry a condition of epistemic non-specificity; stress on some is related to both properties. These findings are discussed in light of different theories of indefinite interpretation.
Published online: 03 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.03ion
References

References

Anderson, C.
2004 The Structure and Real-time Comprehension of Quantifier Scope Ambiguity. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.
Becker, M.
1999 The some indefinites. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 3: Syntax at Sunset 2, G. Storto (ed.), 1–13.Los Angeles CA: UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cowart, W.
1997 Experimental Syntax. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dahl, O.
1970 Some notes on indefinites. Language 46(1): 33–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, M.
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Endriss, C.
2009 Quantificational Topics. A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Enç, M.
1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Farkas, D.
1981 Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Proceedings of CLS 7, R. Hendrik, et al. (eds), 59–66. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
1994 Specificity and scope. In Langues et Grammaires 1, L. Nash & G. Tsoulas (eds), 119–137. Paris: University of Paris VIII.Google Scholar
2002a Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 213–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002b Varieties of indefinites. In Proceedings of SALT 12, B. Jackson (ed.). Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. & Sag, I.
1982 Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3): 355–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, A.
2011 Negative and positive polarity items: Licensing, compositionality and variation. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M.
1981 A pragmatic analysis of specificity. In Ambiguity in Intensional Contexts, F. Heny (ed.), 98–123. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
1997 Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K.
2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 245–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J.
1986 The semantics of a certain . Linguistic Inquiry 17(2): 331–336.Google Scholar
Ionin, T.
2009 Specificity. In The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia, L. Cummings (ed.). New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010 The scope of indefinites: An experimental investigation. Natural Language Semantics 18(3): 295–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Ebert, C. & Stolterfoht, B.
2011 One indefinite scopes out of islands: An experimental study of long-distance scope in English and German. Poster presented at 50 Years of MIT Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, December.
Ioup. G.
1977 Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(2): 233–245,Google Scholar
Jayez, J. & Tovena, L.
2006 Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics 23(3): 217–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L.
1976 Discourse referents. In Syntax and Semantics 7, J. McCawley (ed.), 363–385. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
1998 Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and Grammar, S. Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Amsterdam: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, W.
1980 Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Lyons, C.
1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G.
1977 Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T.
1997 Quantifier scope: How labour is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4): 335–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B.
2001 Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, R. van Rooy & M. Stokhof (eds), 192–197. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R.
2002 Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 289–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tunstall, S.L.
1998 The Interpretation of Quantifiers: Semantics & Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Winter, Y.
1997 Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4): 399–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar