The Semantics of Determiners

References

Abbott, B. 1999. Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions. In T. Matthews and

D. Strolovitch, (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX,
1 - 15.
Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Abusch, D. 1993. The scope of indefinites, in Natural Language Semantics 2: 2, 83 - 135.
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy, Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory Vol. 21, 435 - 483.
Barker, C. 2000. Definite possessives and discourse novelty. Theoretical Linguistics 26,
211 - 227.
Barker, C. 2005. Possessive weak definites. In Kim, J. et al. (eds.), Possessives and
Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, GLSA: Amherst, Massachusetts.
Brasoveanu, A. 2007. Structured Nominal and Modal Reference, PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
Brasoveanu, A. and D. F. Farkas. 2007. Exceptional wide scope as anaphora to quantificational dependencies, to appear in Proceedings of the Seventh Internationional Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation.
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Carlson, G. 2003. 'Weak Indefinites'. In Coene, M. and Y. D’Hulst (eds.), Vol 1 From NP to DP: on the syntax and Pragma-Semantics of Noun Phrases. New York: Benjamins, 195-210.
Carlson, G. and R. Sussman. In press. Seemingly indefinite definites. In S. Kepsar
and M. Reis (eds.), Linguistic Evidence. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. In Natural Language Semantics 6:4, 339 - 405.
Christopherson, P. 1939. The Article: a Study of their Theory and Use in English.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Cornilescu, A. 2001. DO at the left periphery. In Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 1 - 18.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. and B. Laca. 2002 Les noms sans détérminant dans les langues romanes. In D. Godard (ed.), Syntaxe des langues romanes. CNRS.
Farkas, D. 1978. Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian. In Papers from
The 14^th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
Farkas, D. F. and Sugioka. 1983. Restrictive if/when clauses, Linguistics and Philosopy 6 :225-258.
Farkas, D. F. 1995. Dependent indefinites, in Corblin, F., D. Godard and J.-M. Marandin
(eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, Peter Lang: 243-269.
Farkas, D. F. 2002a. Specificity distinctions, Journal of Semantics 19, 1 - 31.
Farkas, D. F. 2002b. Extreme non-specificity in Romanian, 2002, in C. Beyssade et al. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, John Benjamins.
Farkas, D. F. 2006. Free Choice in Romanian, in B. Birner and G. Ward (ed.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. John Benjamins: New York, 71 - 95.
Farkas, D. F. and H. de Swart.2007a. Article choice in plural generics, Lingua 117 (9), 1657-1676.
Farkas, D. F. and H. de Swart. 2007b. Inclusive and exclusive plurals reconciled, talk given at the Amsterdam Colloquium, December 2007.
Gierling, D. 1997. Clitic doubling, specificity and focus in Romanian. In G. R. Black and
V. Motapanyane (eds.), Clitics, Pronouns and Movement, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 63 - 85.
Hawkins, J. 1991. On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality
predictions, Journal of Linguistics 27, 405 - 442.
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Heim, I., 1991, Articles and definiteness, in A. von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1 - 59.
Kratzer, A., 1998. Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites? In S. Rothstein (ed.) Events in Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 163 - 196.
Kadmon, N. 1987. On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification. PhD Dissertation. University of Massachusetts: Amherst.
Kadmon, N. 1990. Uniqueness, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273 - 324.
Karttunen, L. 1976. Discourse referents. In J. M. McCawley (ed.), Notes from the Linguistic Underground (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 7), New York: Academic
Press, 363 - 385.
Ladusaw, W. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York: Garland
Press.
Lewis, D. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Keenan, E. (ed.), Formal Semantics of
Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3 - 15.
Link, G. 1983). The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: a lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Longobardi, G. 2002. How comparative is semantics? A unified theory of bare nouns and proper names. In Natural Language Semantics 9:4, 335 -369.
McCawley, J. D. 1981. Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Montague, R. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English . In
Hintikka, J., J. Moravcsik and P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 221 - 241.
Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation,
Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 143 - 186.
Partee, B. 1986. Noun Phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh and M. Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers,
Dordrecht: Foris, 115 - 43.
Poesio, M. and R. Vierira.1998. A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics 24 : 183-216.
Poesio, M. and A. Zucchi. 1992. On telescoping. In Proceedings from SALT II.
Postal, P. 1966. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Dineen, F. (ed.), Report on the
Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies,
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 177 - 206.
Rawlins, K. 2006. Of-possessive pivots. WCCFL 25.
Roberts, C. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. In Linguistics and Philosophy 12:6, 683 - 721.
Roberts, C. 2002. Demonstratives as definites. In K. van Deemter and R. Kibble (eds.), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. CSLI, 89 - 196.
Roberts, C. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26,
287 - 350.
Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14, 479 - 493.
Strawson, P. 1950. On referring. Mind 59, 320 - 344.
Szabolcsi, A. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Szabolcsi, A. (ed.), Ways of Scope
Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109 - 155.
Tasmowski, L. 1987. La reduplication clitique en roumain. In G. Plangg and M. Iliescu (eds.), Rätorumanisch und Rumänisch. Akten der Theodor Gartner-Tagung. Romanica Aenipontana 14, 377 - 400.
Vlachou, E. 2007. Free Choice in and out of Context: Semantics and Distribution of French, Greek and English Free Choice Items, Utrecht: LOT.
Wolter, L. 2006. That’s that: the Semantics and Pragmatics of Demonstrative Noun
Phrases. PhD dissertation. UCSC.

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2 Whether the semantic definite/indefinite distinction within the realm of pronominal DPs parallels the semantic definite/indefinite distinction within the realm of determiners is an interesting issue to which we return below.

3 In what follows we will always exemplify categories in Masculine gender and singular number, which we take to be the morphologically unmarked forms of their paradigms. In glosses we do not mark these values, nor do we mark the present tense and III person on verbs.

4 It is common to distinguish ‘existential’ bare plurals from ‘generic’ ones in English. The former are exemplified in (ia), the latter in (ib):

(i) a. Dogs were playing in the garden.

b. Dogs are intelligent/widespread.

In Romanian, the generic use of bare plurals in English is taken over by definite plurals. For discussion and a possible analysis see Farkas and de Swart (2007a) and references therein.

5 It is assumed here that singular DPs do not have a NumP projection, at least not in languages that do not have an overt singular morpheme, an extremely common, if not universal, situation. For a semantic analysis of number consistent with this morphology, see Farkas and de Swart (2007b).

6 This problem was not obvious for the example used by Russell, given in (i), because of the choice of Restrictor: if there were a king of France there would be only one such person.

(i) The King of France is bald.

7 The formal definition in Gamut (1991) Vol. 2, p. 79 is the following: