Abstract

Some indefinites cannot be bound by adverbs of quantification or the generic operator. I argue that this datum follows from the internal syntax of indefinites: only those indefinites consisting of a minimal structure can be bound, bigger indefinites cannot. I present evidence from Spanish, Russian and English to support this claim. Two theoretical consequences follow. The first one is about wh-dependencies: I argue that wh-phrases cannot be regarded as noun phrases with an extra [wh] feature, but rather as very small indefinites without additional features. The second one involves exceptional scope: choice function approaches seem to run into a paradox that alternative approaches, such as Schwarszchild’s Singleton Indefinite approach, avoid. I also argue that an alternative semantic approach to binding resistance yields no fruit. Finally, I show that only small indefinites can be used as predicates, thus bolstering the approach taken in these pages.

Highlights

  • Very small indefinites: bare nouns and wh-determinersPart of the interest in bare nouns is that they can be interpreted as kinds or as indefinite noun phrases; in languages lacking a definite determiner, a bare noun can function as a definite noun phrase

  • Some indefinites cannot be bound by adverbs of quantification or the generic operator

  • Since Heim (1982), Kamp (1981) and their descendants it has been assumed that indefinite noun phrases are variables

Read more

Summary

Very small indefinites: bare nouns and wh-determiners

Part of the interest in bare nouns is that they can be interpreted as kinds or as indefinite noun phrases; in languages lacking a definite determiner, a bare noun can function as a definite noun phrase Following in part this literature, I take it that these interpretations correlate with different types of silent syntactic structure: the kind interpretation is the result of projecting a NP while an indefinite interpretation involves a NumberP. In this language, a wh-determiner can be bound by an AoQ, as shown in the following two examples (one plural, one singular). In Russian bare singular noun phrases and wh-phrases can be bound by an AoQG while an indefinite determiner built on the wh-determiner cannot be. This confirms the hypothesis that the AoQG can only bind into small indefinites. The exact structure of XP is irrelevant for the purposes of this article

Wh-phrases and the syntax of wh-dependencies
A paradox of choice functions
Semantic solutions
Indefinites as predicates
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call