Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T03:35:52.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NP-interpretation and the structure of predicates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Peter Hallman
Peter Hallman*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Department of Linguistics, McGill University, 1085 Dr. Penfield Ave., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1A7 [peter.hallman@mcgill.ca]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two classes of intensional transitive verbs affect the interpretation of an indefinite object in the same way that stage- and individual-level predicates affect an indefinite subject. The contrast for objects is instantiated inside the scope of intensionality, that is, VP-internally. I claim that the differentiation of subject positions said to underlie the interpretational contrast for subjects recurs in the VP for objects, inside the domain of intensionality. The internal domain of a transitive verb is therefore somewhat syntactically articulated, containing at least two positions for indefinite objects. Quantified objects, however, are VP-external.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 80 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 707 - 747
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arad, Maya. 1999. On ‘little ν’. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33. 1–25.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basilico, David. 1998. Object position and predication forms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 541–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentano, Franz. 1874. Psychologie vom empirischen standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncke and Humbolt. [Reprinted in Psychology from an empirical standpoint, trans, by A. C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell, and L. McAlister, London: Routledge, 1995.]Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. …Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. by Freidin, Robert, 417–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel. 2001. Relative readings of many, often, and generics. Natural Language Semantics 9. 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris, and ThrAinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 27.291–444.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75. 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–25.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet D., and Sag, Ivan. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 355–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstner, Claudia, and Krifka, Manfred. 1987. Genericity. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen, MS.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Licensing in the non-iexicalist lexicon: Nominalizations, vocabulary items and the encyclopaedia. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 119–37.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 1997. In the event of focus. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Horn, George. 1974. The noun phrase constraint. Amherst: University of Massachussetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Minimalism and quantifier raising. Working minimalism, ed. by Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert, 45–75. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 233–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 1999. Stage levels, states, and the semantics of the copula. ZAS papers in linguistics 14. 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Lyle. 1975. The English existential. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1. 181–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1. 128–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1996. The semantics of determiners. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 41–63. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward, and Stavi, Jonathan. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry and Katz, Jerrold, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1992. On the absence of case chains in Bambara. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 555–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85. 211–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1986. Conditionals. Chicago Linguistic Society 22. 1–15.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1988. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. Genericity in natural language, ed. by Krifka, Manfred, 247–84. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. The generic book, ed. by Carlson, Gregory and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 125–75. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis, Carlson, Gregory, Meulen, Alice ter, Link, Godehard; and Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. The generic book, ed. by Carlson, Gregory and Pelletier, Francis, 1–124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murat, Kural.. 1996. Verb incorporation and elementary predicates. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9. 153–85.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1994. Thetic and categorial, stage and individual, weak and strong. Proceedings of SALT IV, ed. by Harvey, Mandy and Santelmann, Lynn, 220–29. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–91.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert. 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, Michael. 1988. Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 201–25.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Reconstructing the lexical domain with a single generative engine. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1970. English as a VSO language. Language 46. 286–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1998. Stativity and theticity. Events and grammar, ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 293–307. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3. 1–29.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1994. Attitude reports, events and partial models. New York: CUNY Graduate Center, ms.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1997. Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 5. 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to natural language, ed. by Hintikka, Jaakko, Moravcsik, J. M. E., and Suppes, Patrick, 221–42. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nash, Léa. 1999. Georgian i- and Romance se: Reflexive-benefactive, mediopassive and unaccusative constructions. Paper presented at Table Ronde Franco-Hollandaise sur les Réfléchis, Paris…Google Scholar
Noonan, Maire. 1992. Case and syntactic geometry. Montreal: McGill University dissertation.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Reuland, Eric and Meulen, Alice ter, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1972. Act. Semantics of natural language, ed. by Harman, Gilbert and Davidson, Donald, 70–126. Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. A-reconstruction and constituent structure. Paper presented at University of California, Irvine, October 25th.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1978. What was there before there was there. Chicago Linguistic Society 14. 458–71.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter. 1952. Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1991. Derived objects, inner aspect, and the structure of VP. Montreal: McGill University, ms.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13. 87–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. Formal syntax: Papers from the MSSB-UC Irvine conference on the formal syntax of natural language, Newport Beach, CA, 1976, ed. by Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 327–60. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Westerståhl, Dag. 1985. Logical constants in quantifier languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Karina. 1986. Genericity and indefinite NPs. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst, ms.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas. 1993. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1. 149–79.Google Scholar