Linguistics and Philosophy:1-27 (forthcoming)

Matthew Mandelkern
New York University
The meaning of definite descriptions (like ‘the King of France’, ‘the girl’, etc.) has been a central topic in philosophy and linguistics for the past century. Indefinites (‘Something is on the floor’, ‘A child sat down’, etc.) have been relatively neglected in philosophy, under the Russellian assumption that they can be unproblematically treated as existential quantifiers. However, an important tradition, drawing from Stoic logic, has pointed to patterns which suggest that indefinites cannot be treated simply as existential quantifiers. The standard dynamic semantic treatment of those phenomena, however, has well-known problems with negation and disjunction. In this paper I develop a new approach to (in)definites. On my theory, truth-conditions are classical. But in addition to truth-conditions, meanings comprise a second dimension of what I call bounds. It is at the level of bounds, not truth-conditions, that I locate the characteristically dynamic coordination between indefinites and definites. The resulting system thus has a classical logic. This approach avoids dynamic semantics’ logical problems, and, more generally, yields a new perspective on the relation between truth-conditional and dynamic effects in natural language.
Keywords anaphora  (in)definites  dynamic semantics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10988-021-09343-w
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Reference and Generality.P. T. Geach - 1962 - Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Assertion.Robert Stalnaker - 1978 - Syntax and Semantics (New York Academic Press) 9:315-332.
Assertion.Robert C. Stalnaker - 1978 - In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Broadview Press. pp. 179.

View all 57 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Trivalence and Anaphora.Matthew Mandelkern - forthcoming - In Paul Egré & Lorenzo Rossi (eds.), Handbook of Three-Valued Logics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pronouns as Demonstratives.Kyle Blumberg - 2021 - Philosophers' Imprint 21 (35).

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Definiteness Projection.Matthew Mandelkern & Daniel Rothschild - 2019 - Natural Language Semantics:1-33.
Descriptions and Beyond.Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.) - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
Type-Shifting and Scrambled Definites.J. van Der Does - 1998 - Journal of Semantics 15 (4):393-416.
Why Indefinites Can Escape Scope Islands.Edgar Onea - 2015 - Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (3):237-267.
Definites.Sebastian Löbner - 1985 - Journal of Semantics 4 (4):279-326.
Donkey Anaphora: The View From Sign Language (ASL and LSF).Philippe Schlenker - 2011 - Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
Indefinites and Intentional Identity.Samuel Cumming - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 168 (2):371-395.
The Dynamics of Description.Jan Eijcvank - 1993 - Journal of Semantics 10 (3):239-267.
Definiteness and Determinacy.Elizabeth Coppock & David Beaver - 2015 - Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (5):377-435.
Descriptions, Truth Value Intuitions, and Questions.Anders J. Schoubye - 2009 - Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (6):583-617.


Added to PP index

Total views
229 ( #47,964 of 2,497,773 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
44 ( #19,104 of 2,497,773 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes