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.
References (32)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowart, W
1997 Experimental Syntax. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dahl, O
1970 Some notes on indefinites.
Language 46(1): 33–41.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diesing, M
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Endriss, C
2009 Quantificational Topics. A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Enç, M
1991 The semantics of specificity.
Linguistic Inquiry 22(1): 1–25.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farkas, D
1994 Specificity and scope. In
Langues et Grammaires 1,
L. Nash &
G. Tsoulas (eds), 119–137. Paris: University of Paris VIII.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farkas, D
2002a Specificity distinctions.
Journal of Semantics 19(3): 213–243.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farkas, D
2002b Varieties of indefinites. In
Proceedings of SALT 12,
B. Jackson (ed.). Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fodor, J. & Sag, I
1982 Referential and quantificational indefinites.
Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3): 355–398.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M
1981 A pragmatic analysis of specificity. In
Ambiguity in Intensional Contexts,
F. Heny (ed.), 98–123. Dordrecht: Reidel.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, M
1997 Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: OUP.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
von Heusinger, K
2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure.
Journal of Semantics 19(3): 245–274.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hintikka, J
1986 The semantics of a certain
.
Linguistic Inquiry 17(2): 331–336.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ionin, T
2009 Specificity. In
The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia,
L. Cummings (ed.). New York NY: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ionin, T
2010 The scope of indefinites: An experimental investigation.
Natural Language Semantics 18(3): 295–350.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jayez, J. & Tovena, L
2006 Epistemic determiners.
Journal of Semantics 23(3): 217–250.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Karttunen, L
1976 Discourse referents. In
Syntax and Semantics 7,
J. McCawley (ed.), 363–385. New York NY: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, A
1998 Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In
Events and Grammar,
S. Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ladusaw, W
1980 Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York NY: Garland.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lyons, C
1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Milsark, G
1977 Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English.
Linguistic Analysis 3(1): 1–29.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reinhart, T
1997 Quantifier scope: How labour is divided between QR and choice functions.
Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4): 335–397.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwarzschild, R
2002 Singleton indefinites.
Journal of Semantics 19(3): 289–314.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Ebert, Cornelia
2020.
Wide Scope Indefinites. In
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics,
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.