Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites?
Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites?
复制标题
范围还是伪镜？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Kratzer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Kratzer
(1)有一个阅读，其中不定NP我的学生有范围内的条款。老师们听到的可能是：“Angelika的一个学生被叫到院长面前。”如果不确定的np是量词，并且量词范围局限于某些局部域，则预期会出现这种读数。(1)在另一篇阅读中，我的一个学生似乎有最广泛的视野，甚至比每个老师都更广阔。桑德斯说，可能是我的一个学生，每个老师都听到了桑德斯被叫到院长面前的谣言。Fodor和Sag认为这不是范围的例子。如果不定np似乎具有异常的范围性质，它们就不是真正的量词。我的一个学生在(1)中表面上的广泛阅读实际上是一种参考阅读。因此，不确定的NPs在定量和参考读数之间是模糊的。如果它们是量化的，则它们的范围不能超过某个局部域。如果它们是引用的，则它们根本没有作用域。然而，它们很容易与最广泛的存在相混淆。
(1) has a reading where the indefinite NP a student of mine has scope within the that clause. What the teachers overheard might have been: “A student of Angelika’s was called before the dean”. This reading is expected if indefinite NPs are quantifiers, and quantifier scope is confined to some local domain. (1) has another reading where a student of mine seems to have widest scope, scope even wider than each teacher. There might have been a student of mine, say Sanders, and each teacher overheard the rumor that Sanders was called before the dean. Fodor and Sag argue that this is not an instance of scope. If indefinite NPs seem to have anomalous scope properties, they are not true quantifiers. The apparent wide-scope reading of a student of mine in (1) is really a referential reading. Indefinite NPs, then, are ambiguous between quantificational and referential readings. If they are quantificational, their scope cannot exceed some local domain. If they are referential, they do not have scope at all. They may be easily confused with widest scope existentials, however.