Semantics etc.

I just came across this paper in a recent issue of the Journal of Pragmatics:

“Harumi Moore”:http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/japanese/hmoore.html, Japanese ka-indefinites and the semantic domain of unknown to the speaker, Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 35, Issue 4, April 2003, Pages 589-614. Abstract.

bq. “What are the functions of the indefinite noun in Japanese, a language that does not obligatorily mark indefinite noun phrases? Through comparison with English indefinite expressions, this paper clarifies the semantics of the Japanese ka-indefinite in the light the semantic division known vs. unknown to the speaker (Haspelmath, Martin, 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford University Press, Oxford), a division which has received little attention in semantic research so far. This paper argues that rather than indefiniteness, the ka-indefinite expresses the speaker`s lack of knowledge of the identity of the referent.”

The topic of indefinites with some kind of modal meaning has been one I have been fascinated with for a while. In my dissertation work, I got frustrated by the contrast between A blue-eyed bear is usually intelligent and Some blue-eyed bear is usually intelligent. I never really knew what to make of the difference between a and some. A little later I came across an interesting discussion in a mostly neglected book by Strawson (Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar, 1974, Methuen, pp. 110/111):

bq. “Consider the following cases:

bq. 1. A policeman has been shot
2. Some {general/cabinet minister/VIP} has been shot
3. I’ve been stung by some insect
4. I’ve been stung by a wasp
5. I’ve been stung by some wasp
6. She has just been delivered of a boy
7. She has just been delivered of some boy

bq. Now what is the difference between the cases in which we use a and the cases in which we use some? My suggestion is that the choice of some rather than a embodies what might be called an acknowledgment or recognition of the fact that the identification supplied, though perhaps the best the speaker can do, might be regarded as inadequate to the circumstances of the case; and that the kind of identification which the choice of some rather than a indicates or suggests inability to provide (though perhaps sometimes accompanied by indifference to or unconcern about) may be either further kind-identification or individual-identification. If this is on the right lines, it would explain some facts about my examples. Thus there is more likely in general to be an individual identification question asked in the case of a cabinet minister (general, V.I.P.) than in the case of a policeman; and more point, therefore, in acknowledging the question, as it were, while disclaiming the ability to answer it. In my next group of three examples, the most satisfactory description of an unsatisfactory situation is given by I’ve been stung by a wasp. That gives all the identification we need of what stung me. I’ve been stung by some insect acknowledges that the kind-identification given falls short of what we generally regard as desirable in such cases (from the point of view, for example, of treatment), even though it may be spoken in a spirit of manly indifference to such concern. I’ve been stung by some wasp, on the other hand, with its suggestion of a possible individual-identification of the wasp in question seems absurd. Even more absurd is the suggestion of a possible individual-identification in the case of She has just been delivered of some boy. It is not totally absurd, any more than the question, Who is the boy she has just been delivered of? is totally absurd; but it would require an elaborate setting to be given any natural use at all.”

For years, I have been giving this long quotation to audiences, trying to inspire some work on this topic. See for example the “lecture notes of a course I taught in Prague”:http://web.mit.edu/fintel/www/qic.pdf and some “notes from an MIT semantics seminar in 1999″:http://web.mit.edu/fintel/www/whatever.notes.pdf, which primarily deal with whatever.

There is now an interesting body of work on what Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito call “epistemic indefinites” and related expressions. Here are some recent references:

bq. Becker, Misha (1999) The ‘Some’ Indefinites, paper presented at Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique à Paris, October 1997. In G. Storto (ed.) Syntax at Sunset 2, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 3.

bq. Kai von Fintel (2000) “Whatever”:http://web.mit.edu/fintel/www/whatever.pdf. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 10.

bq. Angelika Kratzer and Junko Shimoyama (2002) “Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese”:http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNjc4Z/. In Y. Otsu, editor, The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, pp. 1-25.

bq. “Luis Alonso-Ovalle”:http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~luisalo/ and Paula Menéndez-Benito (2003): Some Epistemic Indefinites. To appear in Makoto Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawahara (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 33. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.

This topic is one of the ones I plan to explore in the Spring 2004 Topics in Semantics seminar I will be co-teaching with Sabine Iatridou.

Post a Comment | Trackbacks Closed