Singleton Indefinites and the Privacy Principle: Certain Puzzles

In Daniel Altshuler & Jessica Rett (eds.), The Semantics of Plurals, Focus, Degrees, and Times: Essays in Honor of Roger Schwarzschild. Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 57-80 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The gap between a definite and an indefinite is reduced in the case of specific indefinites, in the sense that they both have determined reference. This fact is reflected in most accounts, particularly so in the analysis of Schwarzschild where specific indefinites are argued to quantify over singleton sets. If definites and specific indefinites share the singleton domain property, how are we to separate the two? The Privacy Principle, which is cued to the information state of discourse participants, is argued to apply to definites as well as indefinites, making it even harder to draw the line between definites and specific indefinites. We look at issues surrounding the distinction between definiteness and specificity through the lens of two empirical phenomena, bare nominals and specificity markers. Bare nominals in languages with determiners, for example, English, and bare nominals in languages without determiners, for example, Hindi, highlight different aspects of the problem. English bare plurals are known to have indefinite readings but not specific indefinite readings. Hindi bare nominals are thought to have definite and indefinite readings but can be shown not to have specific indefinite readings. The second empirical phenomenon we consider are specificity markers like certain. In many languages, they require a determiner in the singular but not in the plural, raising questions about their syntactic status as determiners or modifiers. They also do not occur in certain constructions, for example, imperatives. Probing such restrictions provides a window into their semantic profile. This paper thus presents some puzzles that center around the creation of singleton sets and its relation to the Privacy Principle.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The scope of indefinites: an experimental investigation. [REVIEW]Tania Ionin - 2010 - Natural Language Semantics 18 (3):295-350.
Modal indefinites.Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito - 2010 - Natural Language Semantics 18 (1):1-31.
Indefinites and intentional identity.Samuel Cumming - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 168 (2):371-395.
The scope of indefinites.Dorit Abusch - 1993 - Natural Language Semantics 2 (2):83-135.
Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms.Veneeta Dayal - 2004 - Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (4):393-450.
Definiteness and determinacy.Elizabeth Coppock & David Beaver - 2015 - Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (5):377-435.
Two types of indefinites: Hilbert & Russell.Gratzl Norbert & Schiemer Georg - 2017 - IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications 4 (2).
Why indefinites can escape scope islands.Edgar Onea - 2015 - Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (3):237-267.
Licensing of PPI indefinites: Movement or pseudoscope?Vincent Homer & Rajesh Bhatt - 2019 - Natural Language Semantics 27 (4):279-321.
Far from obvious: the semantics of locative indefinites.Sela Mador-Haim & Yoad Winter - 2015 - Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (5):437-476.
A unified analysis of the English bare plural.Greg N. Carlson - 1977 - Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3):413 - 456.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-17

Downloads
10 (#1,025,836)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references