Back to uniqueness presupposition
While it is usually assumed that definite descriptions presuppose the existence and the uniqueness for their referent, there are lots of counter-examples, in which either the existence or the uniqueness isn’t presupposed. Among them are weak definites, which can be divided into two classes: (i) the...
Zapisane w:
| Wydane w: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/rlv, |
|---|---|
| 1. autor: | |
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Język: | Anglais |
| Wydane: |
Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes
2014
|
| Hasła przedmiotowe: | |
| Dostęp online: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Streszczenie: | While it is usually assumed that definite descriptions presuppose the existence and the uniqueness for their referent, there are lots of counter-examples, in which either the existence or the uniqueness isn’t presupposed. Among them are weak definites, which can be divided into two classes: (i) the short weak definites such as the train in the VP take the train and (ii) the long weak definites such as the student of a linguist in the sentence this data comes from the student of a linguist. A unified analysis of these two classes is proposed, based on the claim that nouns in weak definite descriptions refer to types and that the definite determiner triggers only a weak uniqueness presupposition, in wich the uniqueness depends on the existence. |
|---|