Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:28:32.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A syntactically-driven approach to indefiniteness, specificity and anti-specificity in Romance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2021

M. TERESA ESPINAL Open the ORCID record for M. TERESA ESPINAL [Opens in a new window]  and
SONIA CYRINO Open the ORCID record for SONIA CYRINO [Opens in a new window]
M. TERESA ESPINAL
Affiliation:
Departament de Filologia Catalana/Centre de Lingüística Teòrica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain Teresa.Espinal@uab.cat
SONIA CYRINO
Affiliation:
Deparmento de Lingüística, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem, Rua Sérgio Buarque de Holanda 571, Universidade Estadual de Campinas – University of Campinas, Campinas, SP – 13083-859, Brazil cyrino@unicamp.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we present an original approach to analyze the compositionality of indefinite expressions in Romance by investigating the relevance of their syntactic distribution in relation to their meaning. This approach has the advantage of allowing us to explore the question of how syntactic structure can determine the meaning of different forms of indefiniteness. To that end, we postulate a common derivation for bare plurals, bare mass and de phrases, whereby an abstract operator de is adjoined to definite determiners and shifts entities into property-type expressions. Quantificational specificity is proposed to be derived from a syntactic structure in which weak quantifiers select for indefinite de-phrases, no matter whether de is overt at Spell-Out or not; these quantifiers turn properties into generalized quantifiers. The anti-specificity meaning of some indefinites is derived by adjoining in the syntactic structure an abstract operator alg that encodes the speaker’s epistemic state of ignorance to a quantifier encoded for specificity, and it turns a generalized quantifier into a modified generalized quantifier. The paper also brings some general predictions on how indefiniteness is expressed in Romance, as it provides extensive support from five Romance languages: Brazilian Portuguese, Catalan, French, Italian and Spanish.

Keywords

anti-specificityBrazilian PortugueseCatalanFrenchindefinitenessItalianSpanishspecificity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , August 2022 , pp. 535 - 570
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We acknowledge the financial support from Spanish Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, grants FFI2017-82547-P and PID2020-112801GB-100, Generalitat de Catalunya, grant 2017SGR634, and ICREA Academia 2015 for the first author, and from The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Grant 304.574/2017-1 for the second author. Parts of this paper were presented at Romania Nova (New York, 2019), Around Partitive Articles Workshop (Frankfurt, 2019), LSRL50 (Austin, TX, 2020), CamCoS9 (Newcastle, 2020), Incontro di Grammatica Generativa (Siena, 2021), and 30 Colloquium Generative Grammar (Bellaterra, 2021). We thank the audience of these conferences for their suggestions and comments, and special thanks to Claire Beyssade, Alessandro Bigolin, Silvio Cruschina, Viviane Déprez, Claudine Fréchet, Montserrat Llobet, Paolo Morosi, Norma Schifano, Federico Silvagni for their intuitions on the data. We also thank three anonymous referees of Journal of Linguistics, whose comments greatly helped us to improve this paper. The remaining errors are our responsibility.

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2019. Morphological and semantic markedness revisited: The realization of plurality across languages. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 38.1, 123–154. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Stavrou, Melita. 2020. Partitives, pseudopartitives and the preposition apo in Greek. In Ihsane, Tabea & Stark, Elisabeth (eds.), Linguistics 58.3, 713–743. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aloni, Maria. 2011. Quantification under conceptual covers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2003. Some epistemic indefinites. In Kadowaki, Makoto & Kawahara, Shigeto (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd North East Linguistic Society (NELS 33), 1–12. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2008. Minimal domain widening. In Abner, Natasha & Bishop, Jason (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 27), 36–44. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. Modal indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 18.1, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2011. Domain restrictions, modal implicatures and plurality: Spanish algunos. Journal of Semantics 28.2, 211–240. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffq016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2013. Epistemic indefinites: Are we ignorant about ignorance? In Aloni, Maria, Franke, Michael & Roelofsen, Floris (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 35–42. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1998. Partitives, double genitives, and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16.4, 679–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battye, Adrian. 1990. La quantificazione nominale: il veneto e l’italiano a confront con il genovese e il francese. Annali di Ca’ Foscari XXIX, 27–44.Google Scholar
Bauche, Henri. 1951. Le langage populaire. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense: In name only, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bosveld-de Smet, Leonie. 1998. On mass and plural quantification: The case of French des/du-NPs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Bosveld-de Smet, Leonie. 2004. Towards a uniform characterization of Noun Phraes with des or du. In Corblin & de Swart (eds.), 41–54.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number and interfaces: Why languages vary. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana. 2006. The syntax of quantified phrases and quantitative clitics. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol 5, 23–93. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana. 2016. The syntax of the Italian indefinite dei. Lingua 181, 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana. 2017. Quantified expressions and quantitative clitics. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., 1–42. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana. 2018. Indefinite determiners: Variation and optionality in Italoromance. In d’Alessandro, Roberta & Pescarini, Diego (eds.), Advances in Italian dialectology: Sketches of Italo-Romance grammars, vol. 1, 135–161. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana. 2020. Indefinite determiners in informal Italian: A preliminary analysis. Linguistics 58.3, 679–712. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlier, Anne. 2007. From preposition to article: The grammaticalization of the French partitive. Studies in Language 31.1, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlier, Anne. 2013. Grammaticalization in progress in Old French: Indefinite articles. In Arteaga, Deborah L. (ed.), Research on Old French: The state of the art, 45–60. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4768-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlier, Anne. 2020. Du/des NPs in French: A comparison with bare NPs in English and Spanish. Presented at Going Romance XXXIV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlier, Anne & Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2014. The grammaticalization of the prepositional partitive in Romance. In Luraghi, Silvia & Huumo, Tuomas (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories, 477–518. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1997. Partitives, reference to kinds and semantic variation. In Lawson (ed.), 73–98.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Ariel & Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2002. Topic, focus, and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10, 125–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corblin, Francis. 1987. Indéfini, défini et démonstratif. Constructions linguistiques de la référence. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Corblin, Francis and de Swart, Henriëtte (eds.). 2004. Handbook of French semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Corblin, Francis, Marandin, Jean-Marie & Sleeman, Petra. 2004. Nounless determiners. In Corblin & de Swart (eds.), 23–40.Google Scholar
Cordin, Patrizia. 1988. El clitico ne. In Renzi, Lorenzo (ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, 635–641 Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Cresti, Diana. 1995. Indefinite topics. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Cyrino, Sonia & Espinal, M.Teresa. 2015. Bare nominals in Brazilian Portuguese: More on the DP/NP analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33, 471–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9264-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyrino, Sonia & Espinal, M.Teresa. 2020. On the syntax of Number in Romance. Studia Linguistica 74.1, 165–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 1995. On the characterization of the weak–strong distinction. In Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika & Partee, Barbara H. (eds.), Quantification in natural languages, 421–450 Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 2006. Aspectual implications of the semantics of plural indefinites. In Vogeleer & Tasmowski (eds.), 161–189.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 409–442. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfitto, Denis. 1993. A propos du statut lexical de l’article partitif en français: Quelques hypotheses sur l’interaction entre morphologie et forme logique. In Hulk, Aafke, Malka, Francine & Schroten, Jan (eds.), Du lexique à la morphologie: Du coté de chez Zwaan. Textes réunis en l’honneur du soixantième anniversaire de Wiecher Zwanenburg, 103–116. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1997. Types of predicates and the representation of existential readings. In Lawson (ed.), 117–134.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2021. Negation, des indefinites and bare nouns across languages. In Ihsane (ed.), 187–226.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Beyssade, Claire. 2012. Redefining indefinites. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Bleam, Tonia & Espinal, M.Teresa. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Vogeleer & Tasmowski (eds.), 51–79.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Laca, Brenda. 1996. Generic bare NPs. Ms., University of Paris 7 & Université Strasbourg II.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Laca, Brenda. 2003. Les noms sans déterminant dans les langues romanes. In Godard, Danièle and Abeillé, Anne (eds.), Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, 235–281. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 2009. La doppia base della ristrutturazione. In Cardinaletti, Anna & Munaro, Nicola (eds.), Italiano, italiani regionali e dialetti, 99–114. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Eguren, Luis and Sánchez, Cristina. 2007. Imprecisión extensional e imprecisión intensional: la gramática de cierto. Verba 34, 99–124.Google Scholar
Enç, Murvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22.1, 1–25.Google Scholar
Espinal, M.Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish: Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120, 984–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.Teresa & Cyrino, Sonia. 2021. The status of de in Romance indefinites, partitives and pseudopartitives. To appear in Studia Linguistica.Google Scholar
Espinal, M.Teresa & McNally, Louise. 2011. Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 47, 87–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi & Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2017. A unified analysis of Spanish algún/algunos: Anti-specificity, plurality, and NP-anaphora. Ms., CNRS-IKER & The University of Chicago. http://www.iker.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/etxeberria.giannakidou_algunos_2017.pdf (accessed 17 July 2019).Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2000. Scope matters. In von Heusinger & Egli (eds.), 79–108.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2020. Canonical and non-canonical questions. Ms., UC Santa Cruz & Princeton University. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WU2ZjIwM/questions.pdf (accessed 22 February 2021).Google Scholar
Galmiche, Michel. 1986. Référence indéfinie, événements, propiétés et pertinence. In David, Jean & Kleiber, Georges (eds.), Déterminants: syntaxe et sémantique, 41–71. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Gerards, David Paul & Stark, Elisabeth. 2021. Why ‘partitive articles’ do not exist in (Old) Spanish. In Ihsane (ed.), 105–139.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2010. Specific indefinites, presupposition, and scope. In Bäuerle, Raine, Reyle, Uwe & Zimmermann, Thomas (eds.), Presupposition and discourse, 125–158. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Paul, Ileana & Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. Determiners: Universals and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Quer, Josep. 2013. Exhaustive and non-exhaustive variation with anti-specific indefinites: Free choice and referential vagueness in Greek, Catalan, and Spanish. Lingua 26, 120–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2015. Nominal syntax at the interfaces: A comparative analysis of languages with articles. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2021. A protocol for indefinite determiners in Italian and Italo-Romance. In Ihsane (ed.), 262–300.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2001. The semantics of Spanish plural existential determiners. Probus 13, 113–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2003. La semántica de los indefinidos. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2010. Varieties of indefinites in Spanish. Language and Linguistics Compass (4)8, 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2011. Definitenes and indefiniteness. In Portner, Paul, von Heusinger, Klaus & Maienborn, Claudia (eds.) Semantics: Noun phrases and verb phrases, 33–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110589443-002.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 16.2, 335–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea. 2008. The layered DP: Form and meaning of French definites. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea. 2021a. Telicity, specificity, and complements with a ‘partitive article’ in French. In Ihsane (ed.), 227–261.Google Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea (ed.). 2021b. Disentangling bare nouns and nominals introduced by a partitive article. Leiden & Boston, MA: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X′-syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jayez, Jacques & Tovena, Lucia. 2013. Scenarios of equivalence: The case of quelque. In Ebert, Cornelia & Hinterwimmer, Stefan (eds.), Different kinds of specificity across languages, 177–207. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1981. ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12.1, 93–133.Google Scholar
Kleiber, Georges. 1988. L’opposition massif/comptable et les adjectifs. In David, Jean & Kleiber, Georges (eds.), Termes massifs et termes comptables, 267–292 Paris: Librairie Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelica. 2004. The telicity and the meaning of objective Case. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time, 389–424. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, Renate, Von Benthem, Johan & Van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laca, Brenda. 2013. Spanish bare plurals and topicalization. In Kabatek, Johannes & Wall, Albert (eds.), New perspectives on bare noun phrases in Romance and beyond, 95–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 1999. Los determinantes. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Specificity and differential object marking. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3, 75–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2012. Indefiniteness and specificity. In Hualde, José Ignacio, Olarrea, Antxon & O’Rourke, Erin (eds.), Handbook of Hispanic linguistics, 285–306. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics 9, 335–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24, 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López Palma, Helena. 2007. Plural indefinite descriptions with unos and the interpretation of number. Probus 19.2, 235–266.Google Scholar
Martí, Luisa. 2008a. Restoring indefinites to normalcy: An experimental study on the scope of Spanish algunos. Journal of Semantics 24.1, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martí, Luisa. 2008b. The semantics of plural indefinite noun phrases in Spanish and Portuguese. Natural Language Semantics 16, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martí, Luisa. 2009. Contextual restriction on indefinites. In Giannakidou, Anastasia & Rathert, Monica (eds.), QP structure, nominalizations, and the role of DP, 108–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martí-Girbau, Núria. 2010. The syntax of partitives. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise 1995. Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties. In Morrill, Glyn & Oehrle, Richard (eds.), Formal grammar, 197–222 Barcelona: Universitat Polèctnica de Catalunya.Google Scholar
Milner, Jean-Claude. 1978. De la syntaxe à l’interprétation: quantités, insultes, exclamations. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary 1974. Existential sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published by Garland, New York, 1979.]Google Scholar
Munn, Alan & Schmitt, Cristina. 2005. Number and indefinites. Lingua 115, 821–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Haplological dissimilation at distinct stages of exponence. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 84–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Groenendijk, Jeroen, de Jong, Dick & Stokhof, Martin (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective Binding. In Reuland, Eric J. and ter Meulen, Alice G. B. (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinzin, Francesco & Poletto, Cecilia. 2020. Partitive articles vs. bare nouns in Northern Italy: A morphological parameter. Presented at Going Romance XXXIVGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2002. Topicality and (non-)specificity in Mandarin. Journal of Semantics 19, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tania. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labour is devided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics & Philosophy 20, 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigau, Gemma. 1999. La estructura del sintagma nominal: los modificadores del nombre. In Bosque & Demonte (eds.), 311–362.Google Scholar
Sánchez, Cristina. 1999. Los cuantificadores: clases de cuantificadors y estructuras cuantificativas. In Bosque & Demonte (eds.), 1025–1128.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina & Munn, Alan. 1999. Against the Nominal Mapping Parameter: Bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In Tamanji, Pius, Hirotani, Mako & Hall, Nancy (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th North-East Linguistic Society (NELS 29), 339–353. Delaware, DE: University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Tom & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax, 285–325. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Seres, Daria. 2020. The expression of genericity in languages with and without articles. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Seres, Daria & Borik, Olga. To appear. Definiteness in the absence of uniqueness: The case of Russian. In Blümel, Andreas, Gajić, Jovana, Geist, Ljudmila, Junghanns, Uwe & Pitsch, Hagen (eds.), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2018. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Šimík, Radek & Demian, Christoph. 2020. Definiteness, uniqueness, and maximality in languages with and without articles. Journal of Semantics 37.3, 311–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffaa002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth. 2002. Indefiniteness and specificty in Old Italian texts. Journal of Semantics 19, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth & Gerards, David Paul. 2021. ‘Partitive articles’ in Aosta Valley Francoprovençal: Old questions and new data. In Ihsane (ed.), 301–334.Google Scholar
Stavrou, Melita. 2003. Semi-lexical nouns, classifiers and the interpretation of the pseudopartitive construction. In Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds.), From NP to DP: The syntax and semantics of noun phrase, vol. 1, 329–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark J. 2003. Scope alternation and the syntax–semantics interface. Presented at CSSP, Paris.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark J. 2006. Surface-compositional scope-alternation without existential quantifiers. Ms., The University of Edinburgh. http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/steedman/papers/quantifiers/journal6.pdf (accessed 12 April 2021).Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30, 487–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storto, Gianluca. 2003. On the status of the partitive determiner in Italian. In Quer, Josep, Schroten, Jan, Scorretti, Mauro, Sleeman, Petra & Verheugd, Els (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001: Selected papers from Going Romance 2001, 315–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todolí, Júlia. 2002. Els pronoms. In Solà, Joan, Lloret, Maria Rosa, Mascaró, Joan and Saldanya, Manuel Pérez (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 1337–1433 Barcelona: Emnpúries.Google Scholar
Tovena, Lucia, Déprez, Viviane & Jayez, Jacques. 2004. Polarity sensitive items. In Corblin & de Swart (eds.), 391–416.Google Scholar
Villalta, Elisabeth. 1994. Plural indefinites in Spanish and distributivity. Ms., Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2000a. Anaphora, antecedents and accessibility. Theoretical Linguistics 26, 75–93.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2000b. The reference of indefinites. In von Heusinger & Egli (eds.), 247–265.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2007. Referentially anchored indefinites. In Comorovski, Ileana & von Heusinger, Klaus (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 273–292. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specificity. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 1025–1057. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 639–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics & Philosophy 20.4, 399–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeom, Jae. 1998. A presuppositional analysis of specific indefinites: Common grounds as structured information states. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 1995/2000. Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2008. Dei ex-machina: A note on plural/mass indefinite determiners. Studia Linguistica 63.3, 301–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar