Abstract
The paper investigates how sentential predicates influence whether an indefinite (weak) subject has weak or strong interpretation. It is argued that these interpretational possibilities are determined by the specifying or non-specifying character of the predicate, which in turn depends on other predicate properties. The results of examining telic/atelic, bounded/unbounded, stage-level/individual-level distinctions is that it is telicity and locatedness that can make a predicate specifying. The main claim is that the whole story is the result of a general specifying criterion. English, Hungarian and French data are considered during the argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bach, E. 1981. On time, tense, and aspect: an essay in English metaphysics. In: Cole, P. (ed.): Radical pragmatics, 63-81. Academic Press, New York.
Barwise, J.-Cooper, R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. In: Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159-219.
Bosveld-de Smet, L. 1993. Indefinite subjects in French and stage-level versus individual-level predicates. In: Boer, A. de-Jong, J. de Landeweerd, R. (eds): Language and cognition 3, 29-38. University of Groningen.
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Irvine.
Dahl, ö. 1995. The marking of the episodic/generic distinction in tense-aspect systems. In: Carlson, G.N.-Pelletier, F.J. (eds): The generic book, 412-26. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Depraetere, I. 1995. On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. In: Linguistics and Philosopy 18: 1-19.
è. Kiss, K. 1994. Generic and existential bare plurals and the classification of predicates. Working Papers in the Theory of Grammar, Vol. 1, No. 2. Research Institute of Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest.
è. Kiss, K. 1995. Definiteness Effect revisited. In: Kenesei, I. (ed.): Levels and structures (Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 5), 63-88. JATE, Szeged.
Enç, M. 1991. The semantics of specificity. In: Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1-25.
Groenendijk, J.-Stokhof, M. 1980. A pragmatic analysis of specificity. In: Heny, F. (ed.): Ambiguities in intensional contexts, 153-90. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Hoop, H. de 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen.
Hoop, H. de 1995. On the characterization of the weak-strong distinction. In: Bach, E.-Jelinek, E.-Kratzer, A.-Partee, B.H. (eds): Quantification in natural languages, 421-50. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Kálmán, L. 1985. Word order in neutral sentences. In: Kenesei, I. (ed.): Approaches to Hungarian 1, 13-23. JATE, Szeged.
Kleiber, G. 1981. Relatives spècifiantes et relatives non spècifiantes. In: Le français moderne 49: 216-33.
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In: Carlson, G.N.-Pelletier, F.J. (eds): The generic book, 125-75. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ladusaw, W.A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In: Harvey, M. Santelmann, L. (eds): Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV, 220-29. Cornell University, Ithaca.
Ludlow, P.-Neale, S. 1991. Indefinite descriptions: in defense of Russell. In: Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 171-202.
Milsark, G. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT, Cambridge MA.
Szabolesi, A. 1986. From the Definiteness Effect to lexical integrity. In: Abraham, W.-de Meij, S. (eds): Topic, focus and configurationality, 332-60. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maleczki, M. Weak Subjects in Fixed Space. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46, 95–117 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009629925442
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009629925442