The Definiteness Effect as a Scalar Implicature
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper supports the view that the distinction between strong NPs and weak NPs rests on the presence or the absence of the uniqueness component. When a uniquely identifiable set is presupposed, the NP is perceived as strong, producing the proportional reading which indicates a certain proportion out of a unique set, but, when such a presupposition is absent, the NP is received as weak, yielding the cardinal reading that refers to some quantity that is not based on a unique set. Drawing the distinction between strong/weak NPs on the basis of a uniquely identifiable set, we can naturally address why the existential there-be construction refuses strong NPs. The cognitive status related to the existential there-be construction is type identifiability which is placed much lower than unique identifiability, the status of which strong NPs must satisfy. In terms of the maxim of quantity, type identifiability that is weaker in scale of the givenness hierarchy than unique identifiability implies that it is not uniquely identifiable and this implicature of the existential there-be construction causes incompatibility with strong NPs.
Abstract
This paper supports the view that the distinction between strong NPs and weak NPs rests on the presence or the absence of the uniqueness component. When a uniquely identifiable set is presupposed, the NP is perceived as strong, producing the proportional reading which indicates a certain proportion out of a unique set, but, when such a presupposition is absent, the NP is received as weak, yielding the cardinal reading that refers to some quantity that is not based on a unique set. Drawing the distinction between strong/weak NPs on the basis of a uniquely identifiable set, we can naturally address why the existential there-be construction refuses strong NPs. The cognitive status related to the existential there-be construction is type identifiability which is placed much lower than unique identifiability, the status of which strong NPs must satisfy. In terms of the maxim of quantity, type identifiability that is weaker in scale of the givenness hierarchy than unique identifiability implies that it is not uniquely identifiable and this implicature of the existential there-be construction causes incompatibility with strong NPs.
참고문헌 (14)
- Abbott, B., "Support for a Unique Theory of Definite Descriptions", Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 9, pp.1~15 (1999)
- Barker, C., "Partitives, Double Genitives, and Anti-uniqueness", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, pp.679~717 (1998)
- Barwise, J., "Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language", Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, pp.159~219 (1981)
- Carlson, G., "Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives", pp.71~86 (2005), Mouton de Gruyter
- Gundel, J, "Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse", Language, 69, pp.274~307 (1993)
- Heim, I., "The Representation of Indefiniteness", pp.21~42 (1987), MIT Press
- Higginbotham, J., "The Representation of Indefiniteness", pp.43~70 (1987), MIT Press
- Kearns, K., "Semantics" (2000), St. Martin's Press
- Keenan, E. L., "Representation of Indefiniteness", pp.286~317 (1987), MIT Press
- Milsark, G., "Existential Sentences in English", 박사, pp.1974
- Milsark, G., "Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities in the Existential Construction in English", Linguistic Analysis, 3, pp.1~30 (1977)
- Partee, B., "Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara Partee" (2004), Blackwell Publishers
- Poesio, M., "Proceedings of SALT 4", pp.282~299 (1994), DMLL
- Zucchi, A., "The Ingredients of Definiteness and the Definiteness Effect", Natural Language Semantics, 3, pp.33~78 (1995)