Boston University Libraries OpenBU
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    View Item 
    •   OpenBU
    • BU Open Access Articles
    • BU Open Access Articles
    • View Item
    •   OpenBU
    • BU Open Access Articles
    • BU Open Access Articles
    • View Item

    Definiteness and determinacy

    Thumbnail
    License
    © The Author(s) 2015.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
    Date Issued
    2015-10-01
    Publisher Version
    10.1007/s10988-015-9178-8
    Author(s)
    Coppock, Elizabeth
    Beaver, David
    Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare by Email
    Export Citation
    Download to BibTex
    Download to EndNote/RefMan (RIS)
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Permanent Link
    https://hdl.handle.net/2144/27520
    Citation (published version)
    Elizabeth Coppock, David Beaver. 2015. "Definiteness and determinacy." Linguistics and Philosophy, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp. 377 - 435 (59).
    Abstract
    This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Definiteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a (weak) uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate (and thus denote an individual) or indeterminate (functioning as an existential quantifier). The latter option is observed in examples like ‘Anna didn’t give the only invited talk at the conference’, which, on its indeterminate reading, implies that there is nothing in the extension of ‘only invited talk at the conference’. The paper also offers a resolution of the issue of whether possessives are inherently indefinite or definite, suggesting that, like indefinites, they do not mark definiteness lexically, but like definites, they typically yield determinate readings due to a general preference for the shifting operation that produces them.
    Rights
    © The Author(s) 2015. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
    Collections
    • BU Open Access Articles [4833]
    • CAS: Linguistics: Scholarly Papers [66]


    Boston University
    Contact Us | Send Feedback | Help
     

     

    Browse

    All of OpenBUCommunities & CollectionsIssue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionIssue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    Deposit Materials

    LoginNon-BU Registration

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Boston University
    Contact Us | Send Feedback | Help