Existential Dependency: Holes, flaws and problems

Rachel Szekely

Abstract


This paper proposes that a relation, EXISTENTIAL DEPENDENCY, defines a
class of nouns and accounts for the infelicity of its members as subjects of locative
copular sentences and for related definiteness restrictions. This relation is distinguished
from others, such as (in)alienable possession, on conceptual and empirical grounds.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 158–219.

Casati, Roberto and Varzi, Achille. 1994. Holes and Other Superficialities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Individual Level Predicates as Inherent Generics. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The Generic Book. 176–223. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Francez, Itamar. 2007. Existential Propositions. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Hazout, Ilan. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 393–430.

Higginbotham, James. 1981. “On Semantics”. Linguistic Inquiry. 16, 547–593.

Hornstein, Norbert, Sarah Rosen and Juan Uriagereka. 1994. Integrals. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 70–90.

Kimball, John. 1973. The grammar of existence. In: C. Corum, C. T. Smith-Stark & A. Weiser (eds.). Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 9). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 262–270.

McNally, Louise. 1998. Stativity and Theticity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.) Events and Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 293–307.

Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.

Schafer, Robin. 1995. The SLP/ILP Distinction in have-Predication. In Mandy Simons and Teresa Galloway (Eds.) SALT V. 292–309. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University.

Williams, Edwin. 1984. There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 131–153.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/exabs.v0i0.2984