Citation Context

... of BPs could be made to follow from any special inforsince it has been shown that the informational function of an NP iss(see e.g. Kadmon and Roberts 1986) and its ability to function as a (see e.g. =-=Vallduví 1992-=-). discussed in section 2 could be made to follow. The problem with such an approach, however, is that there is no evidence that Spanish BPs differ at all in their syntax from indefinite NPs, despite ...

Citation Context

...itive to particularsoperators – e.g. monotonicity, in the case polarity items sionality, in the case of NPs modified by subjunctive s 1985); or distributivity, in the case of NPs such as efinite (see =-=Farkas 1997-=-). Moreover, such NPs must be rt of operator to be licensed at all. The narrowest scope s differs in both respects from these examples. First, it spective of the characteristics of those operators; se...

Citation Context

...orts of at Spanish BPs are unambiguously interpreted as pro for indefinites. This analysis is much in the spirit of flects a long-held, if never fully formalized, intuition nish BPs (see Alonso 1954, =-=Masullo 1992-=-, Laca 1996, es cited there; contrast Chierchia 1998 for a different rast, I will make no particular claims concerning indefi that, unlike BPs, they are not unambiguously interpreted urposes I will as...

Citation Context

...retawithout paradox or loss of generalization. The use of ys of thinking about the existential force we intuitively he ways in which discourse anaphora is licensed, about be ‘weak’ (see Ladusaw 1994, =-=McNally 1998-=-, and even mmermann 1993). I hope that this preliminary analysisstheoretical and descriptive issues it raises will encour semantic theories that can make insightful use of propions. s, relative to a M...

Citation Context

... morphological sense – a desirable result since Spanish BPs are syntactically quite independent. On the view taken here, incorporated nominals (which, like BPs, are generally determinerless; see e.g. =-=Mithun 1984-=-) and BPs would resemble each other in their semantic type – both interpreted as properties, as e.g. van Geenhoven (1993, 1995) proposes – and therefore likely to combine with predicate denotations vi...

Citation Context

...hem. In the case of Spanish therefore to argue that the d naturally if we posit a simp NPs: specifically, I argue th perties, while this is not so Carlson’s proposal and re about the semantics of Spa =-=Bosque 1996-=- and referenc position on Italian). In cont nites in this paper, other than as properties. For present p treatment proposed for Eng The paper proceeds as rences between BPs and in sented in section 3....

Citation Context

...n rences cited there. An exhaustive study of the descrip, not only for Spanish but for the Romance languages nducted over a number of years by Dobrovie-Sorin and brovie-Sorin 1997, Dobrovie-Sorin and =-=Laca 1998-=-, -Sorin and Laca 2003, the last of these with a compre is little that I could have added to what has already been nominals in the Romance languages denote properties ent positions is not uncontrovers...

Citation Context

...n exhaustive study of the descrip, not only for Spanish but for the Romance languages nducted over a number of years by Dobrovie-Sorin and brovie-Sorin 1997, Dobrovie-Sorin and Laca 1998, -Sorin and L=-=aca 2003-=-, the last of these with a compre is little that I could have added to what has already been nominals in the Romance languages denote properties ent positions is not uncontroversial. Chierchia (1998) ...

Citation Context

... ways: (1) bare plur tors in the sentence, while and (2) bare plurals canno tification over individuals, 3. Analysis I will embed the analysiss(1982) File Change Seman pretation (e.g. DRT, Kamp Stockh=-=of 1990-=-), the seman is characterized as its abili within a conversational co tence will be a function fr for a context C is a pair < indexed variables (correspo as the set of pairs of possi such that <w,g> s...

Citation Context

...blem with such an approach, however, is that there is no evidence that Spanish BPs differ at all in their syntax from indefinite NPs, despite claims in the literature to the contrary (see Fontana and =-=McNally 1995-=- for discussion). Although this discussion has been necessarily abbreviated, I hope to have at least pointed to some reasons why treating BPs as ‘special’ indefinites is not an attractive option.14 5....

Citation Context

...hich were given a more complicated analysis), in at least one major subpart of the recent formal syntax and semantics literature it has been widely assumed (following e.g. Kratzer 1995, Diesing 1992, =-=Wilkinson 1991-=-) that BPs and indefinites can both be interpreted as ‘variables’ (see Kamp 1984, Heim 1982 for slightly different implementations). Though this analysis improves in several ways on Carlson’s original...