Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Phonetics and Phonology
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
Building an alternative: An analogy to definite descriptions
المؤلف:
MARCIN MORZYCKI
المصدر:
Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse
الجزء والصفحة:
P114-C5
2025-04-16
169
Building an alternative: An analogy to definite descriptions
An essential problem here is this: It seems to be a fundamental property of expressive meaning (or conventional implicatures) that a constituent with such an interpretation can’t contain a variable inside it that is bound from outside it. (Karttunen and Peters 1975 termed this the “binding problem.”) The way around this is to suppose that nonrestrictive modification always involves reference, or at least some form of quantificational independence. The problem faced here is that in, for example, unsuitable word or damn Republican, the modified expression is property-denoting. So how then to reconcile this with the need to keep expressive and at-issue meaning apart from each other in the right way? What do expressive modifiers modify?
To address this question, it may help to momentarily revisit an old analytical intuition: that expressive meaning (or in any case nonrestrictive modification) involves, in some sense, interleaving two utterances, one commenting on or elaborating the other. Seen in this light, perhaps the Larson and Marušiˇc (2004) paraphrase of (1a) in (1b) is not only apt, but also revealing:
What’s special about (1a) (on the relevant reading) is that it is a way of saying both sentences of (1b) at once. And the linguistic trick that makes (35b) possible is using they to refer back to a plural individual consisting of the set quantified over by every.
Thus an answer to the question just raised presents itself: Maybe what these nonrestrictive modifiers modify is a potentially plural discourse referent such as the one the pronoun in (1b) refers to.
Importantly, the anaphora (1b) would not be possible with a singular pronoun:
That is, 2) can’t mean “Every word was deleted and unsuitable.” A natural assumption about why this anaphora is nonetheless possible in (1b) is that this they is an E-type pronoun, and consequently is interpreted like a definite description (Heim 1990):
This approach helps avoid an interpretation that includes an element such as “words were unsuitable,” because, unlike kinds, definite descriptions involve a contextual domain restriction.
What’s being quantified over in the unsuitable-words example is not, of course, all words, but only the contextually relevant ones – a fact I’ll reflect here using a contextually supplied resource domain variable C (Westerstahl 1985; von Fintel 1994), as in (4) and (5).1
Roughly analogous assumptions are possible for adverbs:
Striving to assemble these interpretations may be a step toward a more adequate general understanding.
It also provides an alternative way of understanding the damn facts in the previous sections. On this view, the damn machine will convey disapproval of only the machine relevant in the context, and the fucking people next door, disapproval of contextually relevant people next door.
1 In addition to contextual domain restrictions, these rough interpretations introduce a supremum operator that loosely corresponds to the definite determiner in the paraphrases. This is not as significant a move, however. Indeed, the Chierchia (1984) nominalizing type-shift ∩ itself has this general kind of semantics (at least extensionally). Note also that I am placing the resource variable C directly in the syntax, as a subscript on the head.