P(X)]( Y Exists(Y)]) = 9X Snow(X)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Existential sentences without existential quanti cation Louise McNally Universitat Pomp eu Fabra 1. Intro duction 1 In a chapter on existence statements in Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, Strawson makes the following observation: we can...admit the p ossibility of another formulation of existentially quanti ed statement[s], and, with it, the p ossibility of another use of the word `exists'....We can, that is to say, reconstrue every such quanti ed prop osition as a sub ject-predicate prop osition in whichthe sub ject is a prop erty or concept and in which the predicate declares, or denies, its instantiation. (Strawson 1959:241) In other words, there are twoways to express a prop osition whose truth entails the existence of some token entity (or particular, to use Strawson's terminology). Supp ose we take the following there-existential sentence as an example: (1) There was snow. We might, mo difying slightly the analysis in Barwise and Co op er 1981, inter- pret There was as an existence predicate and snow as an existential quanti er over particulars (represented logically in (2)): (2) P [9x[snow(x) ^ P (x)](y [exists(y )]) = 9x[snow(x) ^ exists(x)] Alternatively,we might (essentially equivalently) interpret Therewasas if it were synonymous with the predicate to be instantiated, a predicate that holds of expressions interpreted as prop erties or as what Strawson calls nonparticulars, e.g. as in (3)a. Presumably,itwould b e true that the snow-prop erty is instantiated i some particular, one that is a quantity of snow, exists (i.e. i (2) is true). In its treatment of the NP snow, the semantics for the existential construction represented in (3)a resembles Milsark's 1974 prop osal that Therebe be interpreted as an existential quanti er which takes a predicative NP as its argument, as in (3)b (see also Jenkins 1972, Sa r 1987, McNally 1992, Blutner 1993 and Williams 1994 for related prop osals): (3) a. is-instantiated (^x[snow (x)]) b. P [9x[P (x)](y [snow(y )]) = 9x[snow(x)] 1 I am grateful to Barbara Abb ott, DonkaFarkas, Josep M. Fontana, Chris Kennedy, Man- fred Krifka, Bill Ladusaw, Renate Musan, Martin Stokhof, Veerle Van Geenhoven, and two anonymous reviewers for comments and discussion. 1 It has b een claimed that this latter sort of analysis do es not yield the cor- rect truth conditions for existential sentences with NPs which app ear not to b e monotone increasing, such as those in (4) (see most recently Herburger 1997): (4) a. There were at most ten children at the party. b. There were exactly three pieces of cake left. c. There are no pieces left now. Brie y put, the basic problem raised by (4)a and b is that simply asserting the instantiation of a set of individuals tting the description atmostnNor exactly nN,aswould corresp ond to the use of (3)a, do es not rule out the existence of more than n such individuals, contrary to intuition. And in the case of (4)c, it is not clear what it would mean to assert the instantiation of no pieces. The purp ose of this pap er is to argue that, examples such as those in (4) notwithstanding, Milsark's basic intuition was correct and that the existential predicate in English should b e interpreted essentially as in (3)a, with a prop erty- 2 typ e argument. In particular, b esides discussing the various p ositive arguments in favor of such an analysis, I will show that putative nonincreasing NPs do not presentany obstacle. The analysis to b e prop osed has two notable consequences. First, it indicates that while presupp osition may play a role in accounting for the so-called de nite- ness restriction asso ciated with the construction (see e.g. Lumsden 1988, Prince 1988, Zucchi 1995 and b elow), presupp osition cannot account for all of the de nite- ness restriction facts { in fact, on the view defended here, the de niteness restric- tion facts cannot b e explained by a single generalization. Second, it supp orts the view that the notions weak and strong should b e rede ned as suggested in Ladusaw 1994, where \weak" is essentially equated with \nonparticular-denoting." The pap er is structured as follows. First, I present evidence that the existential 3 predicate is interpreted as a prop erty of nonparticulars rather than particulars. In section 3 I present a semantics for existential sentences and discuss the treat- ment of nonincreasing NPs. The assumptions ab out pragmatics that are needed to make the analysis complete are discussed in section 4. Section 5 contains some 2 For the purp oses of this pap er I treat Therebe as an unanalyzed unit; I do this partly in order to simplify the discussion, which is primarily concerned with the semantic typ e of the argument that gets saturated by the p ostverbal NP, and partly b ecause there is no decisive evidence concerning the individual semantic contributions of the individual words. 3 I take the nal predicative phrase often found in existential sentences (such as those italicized in (i)-(ii)) to b e either a VP adjunct or a part of the p ostverbal NP; for this reason, I will ignore it in what follows: (i) There's a y in your soup. (ii) There are children playing in the yard. See McNally 1992 for arguments that this nal phrase is neither the head of a small clause complementto be (contra e.g. Stowell 1978) nor an indep endent argument of the existential predicate (contra e.g. Keenan 1987), and for further discussion. 2 brief comments on there sentences with verbs other than be,inlight of the analysis prop osed in sections 3 and 4. In the concluding section 6, I p oint out the impli- cations of the analysis for the weak/strong distinction. Finally,inanappendixto the pap er, I compare the way in which existential sentences derive their existential force on the present prop osal with the technique used in Blutner 1993. Although Blutner's analysis of the existential predicate is very similar to the one prop osed here, I will argue that the mechanism he employs to capture the existential force asso ciated with the construction is less successful than that employed here. 2. The existential predicate as expressing a prop erty of nonparticulars 2.1. Evidence from the distributional restrictions on the p ostverbal NP 2.1.1. Sortal sensitivity Relations routinely place restrictions on the semantic prop erties of their ar- guments; (5) illustrates this well-known fact. I will refer to such restrictions as \sortal," intending \sort" to b e interpreted for now in a nontechnical sense. (5)a is anomalous b ecause the act of gathering requires a plurality or group of gather- 4 ers, and a girl do es not denote a plurality or group. In contrast, (5)b and c are p erfectly acceptable; (5)c additionally shows that the problem with (5)a is not simply that it is morphologically singular (\*" marks b oth syntactic illformedness and semantic anomaly; \#" indicates pragmatic anomaly): (5) a. *A girl gathered outside. b. The girls gathered outside. c. A crowd gathered outside. Restrictions of this sort are, of course, also manifest under quanti cation: the sub ject argumentof gather mayserve as a target for quanti cation only if the restriction on the quanti cation ranges over of sets of pluralities or groups, and not sets of single individuals, as the contrast in (6) clearly shows: (6) a. *Every girl gathered in a di erent square. b. Every crowd gathered in a di erent square. A related manifestation of this restriction surfaces in the fact that a sentence like (7)a lacks a reading available to the minimally di erent (7)b: sp eci cally, one on which the predicate is attributed distributively (for the same reason that distributive quanti cation fails in (6)a). However, it do es, unlike (6)a, havea reading on which four girls denotes a plurality (see e.g. Link 1983 on plurals): 4 One could p erhaps take the p osition that (5)a is not semantically anomalous but simply always false. The imp ortantpoint is that whatever is wrong with this example is due to an incompatibility in the the lexical entailments asso ciated with the NP and those asso ciated with the verb. 3 (7) a. Four girls gathered in the square. b. Four crowds gathered in the square. For example, (7)a will b e true if Sally, Martha, Jane, and Clare together assemble in the square but cannot b e construed as a claim ab out four individual girls on separate o ccasions. (7)b, however, is ambiguous b etween a reading which is true only if four crowds convene simultaneously on the square and one which is true e.g. if there are four (p ossibly temp orally distinct) situations involving one crowd in the square. The ab ove examples underscore the fact that sortal restrictions on an argument 5 manifest themselves in di erentways dep ending on the determiner in the NP asso ciated with that argument. If the determiner, and thus the NP containing it, is necessarily quanti cational (as is the case with e.g. each, every in English, see e.g. Rob erts 1987 for discussion), violation of a lexical semantic restriction will manifest itself as anomaly. If the determiner is not necessarily quanti cational, yielding, for example, a plurality-denoting NP,such a violation will b e manifest in the absence of a distributive reading for the sentence.