Abstract
Researchers often assume that possible worlds and times are represented in the syntax of natural languages. However, it has been noted that such a system can overgenerate. This paper proposes a constraint on systems where worlds and times are represented as situation pronouns. The Intersective Predicate Generalization, based on and extending work by R. Musan, states that two items composed via Predicate Modification, such as a noun and an intersective modifier, must be evaluated in the same world and time. To explain this generalization, a rule of Situation Economy is advanced, which holds that structures must have the fewest number of situation pronouns possible. Since strong DPs require a situation pronoun to receive a de re reading, a restriction on the type of strong determiners is proposed, which supersedes Situation Economy in this case. Finally, the paper shows how the Situation Economy approach explains an unrelated phenomenon involving bare plurals and examines the connection between this new rule and the grammar of natural language in general.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benveniste E. (1966) Problémes de linguistique générale. Gallimard, Paris
Bittner M. (1994) Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(1): 53–108
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Chierchia G. (1998) Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4): 339–405
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co.
Chomsky N. (1989) Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 43–74
Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Diesing M. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Dowty D. (1979) Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Springer, Heidelberg
Fox D. (1999) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge MA
Freeze R. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595
Gazdar G. (1980) A cross-categorial semantics for coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 3(3): 407–409
Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden
Jackendoff R. (1977) X′ syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Kamp H. (1971) Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria 37: 227–273
Kayne R. (2000) Parameters and universals. Oxford University Press, New York
Keenan, Edward 1987. A semantic definition of “indefinite NP”. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. E.J. Reuland, and A. ter Meulen, 286–317, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keenan E., Faltz L. (1985) Boolean semantics for natural language. Reidel, Dodrecht
Keshet, E. 2008. Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto distinction, PhD thesis, MIT.
Kratzer A. (1996) Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon 33: 109–137
Kratzer, A. 2007. Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-semantics/.
Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13(4): 317–357
Landman F. (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, Malden
Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: A lattice theoretic approach. In meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle et al. 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Magri, G. 2006. The blindness hypothesis and individual level predicates. In Proceedings of SALT 16. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Milsark, G. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD thesis, MIT.
Milsark G. (1977) Towards the explanation of certain peculiarities of existential sentences in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29
Moro A. (1997) The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Musan R. (1997) On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. Garland, New York
Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Springer, New York
Partee, B. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, Vol. 8, ed. Groenendijk et al., 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8(3): 173–229
Pesetsky D., E. Torrego. (2004). Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The syntax of time, ed. J. Guéron and J. Lecarme 495–537, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, M. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD thesis, MIT.
Pylkkänen M. (2008) Introducing arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge MA
Rapoport T. (1999) Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language 75(4): 653–677
Reinhart T. (1995) Interface strategies. Utrecht, OTS Working Papers
Sauerland U. (2000) Syntactic economy and quantifier Raising. University of Tübingen, Manuscript
Schultze-Berndt E., Himmelmann N. (2004) Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 8(1): 59–131
von Fintel, K., and I. Heim. 2002. Intensional Semantics Lecture Notes, MIT. http://www.phil-fak.uniduesseldorf.de/summerschool2002/fintel.pdf.
Winter Y. (1996) A unified semantic treatment of singular NP coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(4): 337–391
Yatsushiro, K. 1999. Secondary predicate in Japanese revisited. In Proceedings of ESCOL ’99. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Keshet, E. Situation economy. Nat Lang Semantics 18, 385–434 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9059-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9059-1