(Non-)specificity across languages: constancy, variation, v-variation
Open Access
- 29 December 2022
- journal article
- other
- Published by Linguistic Society of America in Semantics and Linguistic Theory
- Vol. 1, 185-205
Abstract
Indefinites are known to give rise to different scopal (specific vs non-specific) and epistemic (known vs unknown) uses. Farkas & Brasoveanu (2020) explained these specificity distinctions in terms of stability vs. variability in value assignments of the variable introduced by the indefinite. Typological research (Haspelmath 1997) showed that indefinites have different functional distributions with respect to these uses. In this work, we present a formal framework where Farkas & Brasoveanu (2020)’s ideas are rigorously formalized. We develop a two-sorted team semantics which integrates both scope and epistemic effects. We apply the framework to explain typological variety of indefinites, their restricted distribution and licensing conditions, and some diachronic developments of indefinite forms.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Kinds of (Non)Specificity2019
- Connectedness as a constraint on exhaustificationLinguistics and Philosophy, 2019
- The scope of alternatives: indefiniteness and islandsLinguistics and Philosophy, 2019
- Propositional team logicsAnnals of Pure and Applied Logic, 2017
- How indefinites choose their scopeLinguistics and Philosophy, 2011
- Modal indefinitesNatural Language Semantics, 2009
- Dependence Logic2007
- Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites?1998
- Dynamic predicate logicLinguistics and Philosophy, 1991
- Referential and quantificational indefinitesLinguistics and Philosophy, 1982