Cover not available
Part of
Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 125–137

Chapter 8
Kratzer’s effect in the nominal domain

Fake indexicals in Dutch and German

| Meertens Institute Amsterdam

Fake indexicals are 1/2 person pronouns that do not have a fixed referent but vary over a set. It has been shown that fake indexicals are subject to morphological restrictions imposed by the verbal morphology. In this paper, we show that fake indexicals in the nominal domain are subject to similar morphological restrictions. Only if the morphology is invariant under 1↔3 person permutation does the sloppy reading occur. This is studied both theoretically and empirically within the Dutch dialectological space.

Keywords: fake indexicals, sloppy identity, verbal morphology, possessive morphology, paradigms, Limburgian, Dutch, German, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Fake indexicals
  • 3. Kratzer (2009)
  • 4.Problems and extensions
  • 5.Theoretical implementation
  • 6.Application in English
  • 7.Variational semantics
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.08pos
References
Boskovic, Z.
2007 On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 589–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 1–52. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coetsem, Frans van
1988 Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Jospeh
1978 The verbal complex V'-V" in French. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 151–175.Google Scholar
GTRP – Goeman, Taeldeman, Van Reenen-Project
Digital dialect database, accesible through [URL]. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
Guéron, Jacqueline
1985 Inalienable Possession, PRO-inclusion, and lexical chains. In J. Guéron (ed.), Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
1994 Puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports. Paper presented at Bielefeld Conference on Indexicals. University of Bielefeld.
Kratzer, Angelika
1998 More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT VIII, 92–109. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
2009 Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 187–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1999 Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In H. Lasnik (ed.), Minimalist Analysis, 97–119. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maier, Emar & Kees de Schepper
2011 Fake indexicals in Dutch – A challenge for Kratzer (2009). Ms Radboud University.Google Scholar
May, Robert
1985 Logical form: its structure and derivation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Cynthia Zocca
2009 Lack of morphological identity and ellipsis resolution in Brazilian Portuguese. In Jairo Nunes (ed.), Minimalist essays on Brazilian Portuguese syntax, 215–236. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara
1989 Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In Caroline Wiltshire, Randolph Graczyk and Bradley Music (eds), 342–65. Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part One: The General Session.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. & A. Holmberg
1989 The role of AGR and finiteness in Germanic SVO language. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43. 51–76.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989 Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan
2006 Toward a syntactic theory of number neutralization: The Dutch pronouns je ‘you’ and ze ‘them’. In Jutta M. Hartmann and László Molnárfi (eds.), From Afrikaans to Zurich German – Comparative studies in Germanic syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Clause-typing by [2] – The loss of the 2nd person pronoun du ‘you’ in Dutch, Frisian and Limburgian dialects. In Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds.), Information Structure and Agreement, 217–254. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland
1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 657–720.Google Scholar
Ross, John R.
1970 On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 222–272. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze
2004 First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 159–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie & Rex Sprouse
1996 L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stechow, Arnim von
2003 Feature deletion under semantic binding. In Makoto Kadowaki & Shigeto Kawahara (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33, 377–403.Google Scholar