Skip to main content

On Singular Existential Quantifiers in Italian

  • Chapter
Existence: Semantics and Syntax

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 84))

Abstract

The paper discusses the paradigm of singular quantifiers in Italian (qualche, ogni, qualsiasi, etc.), focusing on the syntactic and semantic properties of the existential qualche. In different domains, qualche seems to correspond to the English a few, one or more, some or other. The analysis tries to derive the polisemy of this expression from two distinct positions of interpretation, a basic logical meaning and the effect of pragmatic scales. Qualche is then contrasted with English some, Spanish algun and Italian qualsiasi. In the second part of the article the theory is tested against the scope possibilities of qualche, and the quantificational status of this indefinite is evaluated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L. and P. Menéndez-Benito (2003). Some epistemic indefinites. In M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, Volume 33, UMass Amherst, pp. 1–12. GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. L. (1978). Introduction to Generative-Transformational Syntax. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J. (1993). Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across Romance. Ph.D. thesis, CUNY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, V. (2002). Headed relative clauses in generative syntax (part 2). GLOT International 6(8), 235–247. (part 2/2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the “Logicality” of Language, Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 37, Number 4, 535–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. (1994). Partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In G. Cinque et al. (Eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar, pp. 85–110. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corblin, F. (2004). Quelque. In Corblin, F. and de Swart, H. (Eds.) Handbook of French Semantics, pp. 99–107, Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisma, P. (1991). Functional categories inside the noun phrase: A study on the distribution of nominal modifiers. “Tesi di Laurea”, University of Venice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, V. (2004). Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy, Volume 27, Number 4, 393–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, D. F. (2003). On singular some. In C. Beyssade, O. Bonami, P. C. Hofherr, and F. Corblin (Eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, Volume 4, pp. 45–62. Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heycock, C. and R. Zamparelli (2003). Coordinated bare definites. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3), 443–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heycock, C. and R. Zamparelli (2005). Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination, and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics (13)3, 201–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. (1986). The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 331–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayez, J. and L. M. Tovena (2002). Determiners and (un)certainty. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XII, Ithaca, NY, pp. 164–183. Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N. and F. Landman (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy (16)4, 353–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R. (2007). Several, Few and Many. Lingua, 117(5), 832–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and Grammar, pp. 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. and J. Shimoyama (2002). Indeterminate phrases: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp. 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1995). Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In G. Carlson and F. Pelletier (Eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 398–411. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, Volume 1, Chapter 10, pp. 257–291. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F. (2003). Predicate-argument mismatches and the adjectival theory of indefinites. In: Coene, Martine; d’Hulst, Yves (eds.) “From NP to DP, Volume 1: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases”, John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longobardi, G. (1988). La quantificazione, Volume 1 of Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Chapter XVI, pp. 647–700. Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Johngh, and M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics, Chapter 5, pp. 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(20), 335–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R. S. (2002). Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19(3) 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (22)2, 409–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovena, L. M. (2001). Between mass and count. In K. Megerdoomian and L. Bar-el (Eds.), WCCFL 20 Proceedings, Somerville, MA, pp. 565–578. Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y. (1997). Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy (20)4, 399–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y. (2001). Flexible Principles in Boolean Semantics. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamparelli, R. (2000). Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zamparelli, R. (2008). On Singular Existential Quantifiers in Italian. In: Comorovski, I., von Heusinger, K. (eds) Existence: Semantics and Syntax. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 84. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics