Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites?

Facts: Particulars or Information Units?*

“…The situation semantics and the definitions in this section are from Kratzer 1989Kratzer , 1990Kratzer , and 1998, and are repeated here to make the paper self-contained. Our starting point is a set S, the set of all possible situations.…”

Some New Observations on ‘Because (of)’

“…e.g. Hara 2008, Johnston 1994, Kratzer 1998, and -to my knowledge -no such analyses of nominal-complement because of. Thus, one of the primary goals of this paper is to contribute towards a better understanding of the semantics of because (of ) and a precisification of some of the factors which determine its interpretation.…”

“…Although approaching the semantics of because (of ) from a different perspective than Kratzer (1998), who focuses on the interaction of (sententialcomplement) because with indefinites, I share with Kratzer the idea that the ambiguity of because (of ) can be dealt with by means of a common underspecified semantic representation. However, it is an important objective of this paper to enrich the insights offered by Kratzer (1998) and e.g.…”

“…However, it is an important objective of this paper to enrich the insights offered by Kratzer (1998) and e.g. Johnston (1994), showing more explicitly how the different interpretations of because (of ) emerge.…”

Bare NPs: Kind-referring, Indefinites, Both, or Neither?

“…Bare singulars have narrow scope, which argues that they undergo existential type shifting, whereas indefinite article induces wide scope readings, which is evidence that they are interpreted by choice functions. Evidence for the forced choice-function interpretation comes from the fact, observed in Kratzer (1998) , that indefinite NPs with the determiner some do not allow for characterizing statements, cf. (75) .…”