Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 28:4 (2018) ► pp.599–616

Negative existentials

A problem still unsolved

| MTA-DE-SZTE Research Group for Theoretical Linguistics,
Negative existentials containing empty NPs are understood colloquially as representing how things stand in the world. Moreover, utterances of such sentences seem to express propositions or thoughts that are informative and true. Standard static semantic theories cannot provide a straightforward account of these intuitive phenomena. In such frameworks, sentences with empty NPs are considered as being unable to express truth-evaluable contents. This paper investigates two alternative theories of negative existentials. A common feature of these theories is that they adopt a dynamic approach to meaning. I will argue that neither of these alternatives provides a reassuring solution to the apparent truth-conditional problem generated by the utterances of negative existentials.
Keywords: negative existentials, dynamic semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, modulation, linguistic data
Article outline
  • 1.Representing nothing: The contradictory features of negative existentials
  • 2.The dynamic semantic approach to negative existentials
  • 3.An alternative proposal: Static semantics with dynamic pragmatics
  • 4.Is there a way out?
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 23 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17026.vec
References (30)
References
Adams, Fred, and Laura L. Dietrich. 2004. “What’s in an (Empty) Name?” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 851: 125–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David, and Elizabeth Coppock. 2015. “Definiteness and Determinacy.” Linguistics and Philosophy 381: 377–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, David. 2005. “Empty Names, Fictional Names, Mythical Names.” Nous 391: 596–631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clapp, Lenny. 2009. “The Problem of Negative Existentials does not Exist: A Case for Dynamic Semantics.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 1422–1434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gauker, Christopher. 2008. “Against Accommodation: Heim, Van Der Sandt, and the Presupposition Projection Problem.” Philosophical Perspectives 221: 171–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 2000. “Meaning in Motion.” In Reference and Anaphoric Relations, ed. by K. von Heusinger, and U. Egli, 47–76. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1968. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hanks, Peter. 2015. Propositional Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. Thesis, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kertész, András, and Csilla Rákosi. 2012. Data and Evidence in Linguistics: A Plausible Argumentation Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroon, Frederick. 2003. “Quantified Negative Existentials.” Dialectica 571: 149–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Karen. 2017. “Dynamic Semantics.” Oxford Handbooks Online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merricks, Trenton. 2015. Propositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mousavian, Seyed N. 2014. “Empty Names and Pragmatic Millianism.” Thought 31: 49–58.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2010. “Presupposition in Local Contexts: Why Global Accommodation is not Enough.” Language at the University of Essex (LangUE), 2009. Proceedings, 70–80.Google Scholar
Recanati, Francois. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtity Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1995. “Domain Restriction in Dynamic Semantics.” In Quantification in Natural Languages, ed. by E. Bach et al., 661–700. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 1998. “Nonexistence.” Nous 321: 277–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2010. “Presuppositions and Local Contexts.” Mind 1191: 377–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2003. “Presupposition and Accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian Picture.” Philosophical Studies 1121: 251–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spewak, David C. 2016. “A Modulation Account of Negative Existentials.” Philosophia 441: 227–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. “Assertion.” Syntax and Semantics 91: 315–332.Google Scholar
. 2014. Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomasson, Amie L. 1999. Fiction and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2003. “Speaking of Fictional Characters.” Dialectica 571: 207–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, Seth. 2012. “Dynamic Semantics.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. ed. by G. Russell, and D. Graff Fara, 253–279. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vecsey, Zoltán. 2015. “Fiction and Representation.” SATS 161: 202–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Kendall L. 1990. Mimesis as Make-Believe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2015. In Other Shoes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wyatt, Nicole. 2007. “The Pragmatics of Empty Names.” Dialogue 461: 663–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar