1

To appear in Laurence R. Horn &

Gregory Ward, eds., Handbook of
Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell.
DEFINITENESS AND INDEFINITENESS
*
Barbara Abbott
[email protected]
1. Introduction
The prototypes of definiteness and indefiniteness in English are the definite article the and the
indefinite article a/an, and singular noun phrases (NPs)
1
determined by them. That being the case
it is not to be predicted that the concepts, whatever their content, will extend satisfactorily to
other determiners or NP types. However it has become standard to extend these notions. Of the
two categories definites have received rather more attention, and more than one researcher has
characterized the category of definite NPs by enumerating NP types. Westersthl (1985), who is
concerned only with determiners in the paper cited, gives a very short list: demonstrative NPs,
possessive NPs, and definite descriptions. Prince (1992) lists proper names and personal
pronouns, as well as NPs with the, a demonstrative, or a possessive NP as determiner. She
notes, in addition, that certain quantifiers (e.g. all, every) have been argued to be definite
(Prince 1992: 299). This list, with the quantifiers added, agrees with that given by Birner &
Ward (1998, 114). Ariel (1988, 1990) adds null anaphoric NPs.
Casting our net widely, we arrive at the list in Table 1, ordered roughly from most definite
or determined in some sense to least.
TABLE 1: Preliminary list of definite NPs
NP TYPE MORE DETAILS EXAMPLES
1. [
NP
e ] control PRO; pro; other
instances of ellipsis
Mary tried e to fly; [on a pill
packet] e contains methanol
[ =Ariel 1988, ex. 7a]
2. Pronouns the personal pronouns I, you, she, them
3. Demonstratives demonstrative pronouns; NPs
with demonstrative
determiners
This, that, this chair over
here
4. Definite descriptions NPs with the as determiner the king of France, the table

*
I am grateful to the editors of this volume and to Kent Bach for their comments on a draft of
this paper.
1
Noun phrase and NP will be used to denote a category whose specifier is a determiner. It
may be more accurate to speak in terms of determiner phrases (DPs), of which determiners are
heads, but the more traditional category will be retained for this article.
2
TABLE 1: Preliminary list of definite NPs, cont.
5. Possessive NPs NPs with genitive NPs as
determiner
my best friends wedding,
our house
6. Proper names
a. First name alone Julia
b. Full proper name Julia Child
7. NPs NPs with a universal
quantifier as determiner
a. Each Each problem
b. Every Every apple
c. All All (the) girls
8. [
DET
] The null determiner
understood generically
Pencils [are plentiful/made
of wood], beauty [is eternal]
Speaking loosely, we can see that each NP type listed in Table 1 is ordinarily used to refer to
some particular and determinate entity or group of entities. Possessive NPs have been included
in Table 1 since they are almost universally considered to be definite. However Haspelmath
(1999) argues that possessives are not inherently definite but merely typically so. (See also
Barker 2000.)
Turning to indefinites, we can construct a parallel list, going in this case from intuitively
least definite to most definite. The ordering here is very rough indeed, and (as with the ordering
in Table 1) specific details should not be taken to imply any serious claims.
TABLE 2: Preliminary list of indefinite NPs
DETERMINER TYPE COMMENTS EXAMPLES
1. [
DET
] Bare NPs understood
existentially
Children [are crying], snow
[was piled high]
2. Any
a. Polarity sensitive any [hardly] any books
b. Free choice any Any idiot [can lose money]
3. No No thought(s), no music
4. Most Most (of the) apples, most
snow
5. A/an A cook, an idea
6. Sm, some sm refers to unstressed
occurrences with weak or
cardinal interpretation. Some
is the strong, or partitive,
version (see 4 below).
Sm books, some (of the)
space
3
TABLE 2: Preliminary list of indefinite NPs, cont.
7. Several, a few,
many, few
These determiners also are
said to have weak and strong
versions.
Several (of the) answers,
few (of the) athletes
8. Indefinite this Occurrences of this this can
occur in existentials (see
below).
This weird guy [came up to
me]
The tables above have been presented without explicit criteria or argument. In the
remainder of this essay we look in turn at a series of properties uniqueness, familiarity,
strength, specificity each of which is correlated with a range of grammatical phenomena and can
lay some claim to expressing the essence of definiteness.
2
,
3
2. Uniqueness.
The classic uniqueness characterization of the difference between definite and indefinite NPs
emerged in Russells (1905) attempt to find the logical form of English sentences containing
denoting phrases. A sentence with an indefinite NP as in (2) receives the logical analysis in (2a),
which is paraphrasable back into semi-ordinary English as in (2b).
(2) A student arrived.
a. x[Student(x) & Arrived(x)]
b. There exists something which is both a student and arrived.
Viewed in this way, the NP a student has the same type of analysis as a clearly quantificational
NP such as every student, whose standard logical analysis is shown in (3a).
(3) Every student arrived.
a. x[Student(x) Arrived(x)]
b. Everything is such that if it is a student, then it arrived.
Notice that in neither case is the NP (a student, every student) translated as a constituent.
4
Instead these phrases only receive an analysis in the context of a complete sentence.

2
Unfortunately we will be forced to confine our attention in this article to determiners and NP
types in English. There are a number of excellent cross-linguistic studies available: Gundel,
Hedberg & Zacharski 1993 includes data from 5 languages (English, Spanish, Russian, Mandarin
Chinese, and J apanese); Lyons 1999 is a broad cross-linguistic study of definiteness; and
Haspelmath 1997 examines indefinite pronouns in 140 languages.
3
Predicate nominals will not be considered here, but see Graff (2001) for an interesting analysis
which she extends to NPs in argument positions.
4
This feature was essential to Russells explanation of knowledge by description. However it
poses a problem for the compositional analysis of ordinary language, since quantificational NPs
do not receive an interpretation by themselves. The use of restricted quantification (see e.g.
McCawley 1993), while reducing the unsightly mismatch between the cumbersome formulas of
4
Definite descriptions (NPs with the as determiner) were the centerpiece of Russells
analysis. (3) receives the analysis in (4a).
(4) The student arrived.
a. x[Student(x) & y[Student(y) y =x] & Arrived(x)]
b. There is one and no more than one thing which is a student, and that thing arrived.
Comparing (2a) with (4a) it is clear that the clause distinguishing the two is the one underlined in
(4a), which requires there to be only one student. Thus on this view the definite article expresses
the idea that whatever descriptive content is contained in the NP applies uniquely, that is to at
most one entity in the domain of discourse.
Uniqueness does seem to capture the difference between definite and indefinite descriptions
in English when they contrast. This is brought out by examples such as the following:
(5) That wasnt A reason I left Pittsburgh, it was THE reason. [ =Abbott 1999, ex. 2]
where the stress on each article brings forward a contrast between uniqueness vs. nonuniqueness.
It also explains why the definite article is required when the descriptive content of the NP
guarantees a unique referent.
(6) The king of France is bald.
(7) The youngest student in the class got the best grade.
(6) is Russells most famous example.
Russells analysis as given applies only to singular NPs, since the mathematics for which
predicate logic was being developed did not require plurals or mass terms. However it is
relatively straightforward to extend Russells concept (if not his formalization) to definite
descriptions with plurals or mass heads (e.g. the students, the sand). In his classic treatment
Hawkins (1978) proposed that the crucial concept is INCLUSIVENESS reference to the totality of
entities or matter to which the descriptive content of the NP applies. (Cf. also Hawkins 1991;
Hawkins analysis is actually more complex than this, in order to deal with the problem of
incomplete descriptions. See below, 2.3.) This aligns definite descriptions with universally
quantified NPs.
Russells analysis of definite descriptions stood unchallenged for close to fifty years, but
since that time a number of issues have arisen which have caused many to question or to reject it.
Here we will mention three, in order of the seriousness of the challenge they present to Russell,
from weakest to strongest: presuppositionality, referentiality, and incomplete descriptions.
3.3 The problem of presuppositionality
The first challenges to Russells theory of descriptions were raised by P.F. Strawson in his
classic 1950 article On referring. One of the main points of this paper was to take issue with
what Russells analysis implied about what is asserted in the utterance of a sentence containing a
definite description. Consider the Russellian analysis of (6):
(6) The King of France is bald.
a. x[King-of-France(x) & y[King-of-France(y) y =x] & Bald(x)]
b. There is one and only one entity who is King of France and he is bald.

first order logic and their counterpart sentences in English, does not provide a solution. That
awaited Montagues (1973) introduction of generalized quantifiers. See below, 4.2.
5
Strawson argued that the first and second clauses of Russells analysis (underlined in (6b) and
(6c)), the clauses which contain the statements of existence and uniqueness of an entity meeting
the descriptive content of the NP, have a different status from the baldness clause. He pointed
out that were somebody to make an announcement using (6), we would not respond Thats
false!, but would point out the speakers confusion in making the utterance in the first place.
Strawson argued that these two clauses would be PRESUPPOSED (the term is introduced in
Strawson 1952) in a current utterance of (6) and that in the absence of a (unique) king the
question of whether it is true or false simply doesnt arise (Strawson 1950: 330).
It should be mentioned that some sixty years prior to Strawsons paper Frege had argued
the same point in his classic paper On sense and reference: If anything is asserted there is
always an obvious presupposition that the simple or compound proper names [roughly, definite
noun phrases] used have reference (Frege 1892: 69). Furthermore Frege included a specific
argument: if the assertion were as given in (6b) then the negation of (6) should be:
(6) d. Either the King of France is not bald, or the phrase the King of France has no
reference.
However it seems obvious that the negation of (6) would not be (6d) but rather (6e):
(6) e. The King of France is not bald.
which presupposes the existence of a King of France just as much as (6) does. Cf. Frege 1892,
68f. Freges work, now considered fundamental, underwent a period of neglect during the middle
part of the twentieth century.
Since the publication of Strawsons paper there has been fairly unanimous support for the
intuitions he expressed, but less agreement on how best to give an account of these facts. One
main parameter of disagreement has been whether presuppositions are best regarded as a
semantic phenomenon affecting the truth conditions of utterances, as Strawson viewed them, or
are instead better seen as pragmatic conditions on the appropriateness of an utterance. See
Stalnaker (1974) and Boer & Lycan (1976) for discussion, and see Atlas (this volume).
A complicating factor is variation in strength of presuppositions depending apparently on
whether the triggering phrase is functioning as TOPIC of the sentence (see Gundel & Fretheim, this
volume). (6f) seems not to presuppose the existence of a king, or not as strongly as (6), and
seems to be simply false rather than lacking a truth value.
(6) f. Bill had lunch with the King of France last week.
See Atlas (to appear), von Fintel (to appear), and the works cited there for discussion.
3.3 The problem of referentiality
The second important critique of Russells theory was launched by Keith Donnellan in his 1966
classic Reference and definite descriptions. Donnellan argued that definite descriptions have
two uses, one of which, called by him the ATTRIBUTIVE use, corresponds to Russells analysis but
the other of which, termed REFERENTIAL, does not.
Donnellans most famous example is given in (9):
(9) Smiths murderer is insane.
As an example of the attributive use of the description in (9), consider a situation in which the
police detective first views the crime scene where Smith, the sweetest and most lovable person
imaginable, has been brutally murdered. The utterance in that case conveys Whoever murdered
6
Smith is/must be insane, and the particular description used, Smiths murderer, is essential to
the propositional content of the utterance, just as Russells analysis suggests. However we can
imagine quite a different scenario, say at the trial of J ones, whom everyone is convinced is the
one who murdered Smith. Suppose that J ones is behaving very strangely while on trial
muttering constantly under his breath and throwing spitballs at the judge. A spectator might
utter (9), perhaps with a nod in J oness direction, in order to make a claim that the individual
J ones is insane. This would be an example of Donnellans referential use. While on the
attributive use one says something about whoever or whatever fits the description used, on the
referential use the description used is just a means to get the addressee to realize which entity is
being spoken about, and in principle any other description or term which would have that result
would do as well. Thus in the courtroom scenario the speaker might have said, instead of (9),
That guy is insane or He [pointing] is insane.
Donnellan hedged a good bit on whether the distinction he was pointing out was semantic
or pragmatic. One of his more controversial claims was that one could use a definite description
referentially to make a true statement about somebody or something who did not fit the
description for instance in the example above, were J ones innocent of Smiths murder but
insane. Kripke (1977) used this controversial claim in a rebuttal many have found persuasive.
Kripke distinguished semantic reference from speakers reference and argued that Donnellans
referential use was simply the latter and thus a purely pragmatic affair. On the other hand many
of Donnellans defenders who have believed in the semantic relevance of his distinction have
discarded this controversial aspect (cf. Kaplan 1978, Wettstein 1981, Wilson 1991; cf. also
Dekker 1998). Burge (1974) assimilates referentially used definite descriptions (as well as
pronouns and, interestingly, tenses) to the category of demonstrative phrases. According to
Burge what they all have in common is that they are used to pick out an object without
uniquely specifying it (206f). Burge proposes an analysis of demonstrative phrases according
to which reference is determined, in part, by an act of referring on the part of the speaker, which
accompanies the utterance of the demonstrative phrase. However the descriptive content of the
NP must also apply to the referent on his account. (See Bach 2001 for extensive discussion of
Donnellans referential-attributive distinction, and see Carlson, this volume, on reference in
general.)
3.3 The problem of incomplete descriptions.
The kind of examples which appeared in Russells 1905 paper, like (6) repeated here and (10),
(6) The king of France is bald.
(10) The author of Waverley is Scott.
are ones where the content of the description is such as to ensure a unique referent. Thus in a
usual use of such sentences to make a true assertion the Russellian truth conditions would be
satisfied: if (10), for example, is true then there is one and only one person who wrote Waverley
and that person is Scott.
7
Perhaps the most intractable problem with Russells analysis has been the existence of
what are known as INCOMPLETE (or sometimes IMPROPER) descriptions.
5
These are examples in
which the descriptive content of a definite NP does not apply uniquely to the intended referent,
or to anything else. This problem was pointed out by Strawson in his 1950 critique, but only as
a passing comment and not a major objection. Thus Strawson noted:
Consider the sentence, The table is covered with books. It is quite certain that in
any normal use of this sentence, the expression the table would be used to make a
unique reference, i.e. to refer to some one table. It is a quite strict use of the definite
article. Russell says that a phrase of the form the so-and-so, used strictly, will
only have an application in the event of there being one so-and-so and no more. Now
it is obviously quite false that the phrase the table in the sentence the table is
covered with books, used normally, will only have an application in the event of
there being one table and no more. (Strawson 1950: 332)
Notice that in this passage Strawson does not object to the uniqueness aspect of Russells
analysis per se; rather his point is to distinguish referring uniquely from asserting that a
description applies uniquely.
Strawson does not address the problem of how determinate reference is secured in the case
of incomplete descriptions, but many others have. One possibility that might suggest itself is
that incomplete definite descriptions are always used referentially, in Donnellans sense. If that
were the case then an analysis such as that proposed by Burge and sketched above, for example,
might solve this problem. However it has long been clear that this is not the case. Peacocke
(1975: 209) proposes the case of two school inspectors visiting an institution for the first time:
one may say to the other, on the basis of the activities around him, the headmaster doesnt have
much control over the pupils. . Here the description is clearly being used attributively in
Donnellans sense, although it is incomplete.
In Peacockes example how to fill in the missing constituent (the headmaster [of this
school]) is fairly straightforward. If all cases of attributively used incomplete descriptions were
of this type (as was suggested by Wettstein 1981), then the problem of incomplete descriptions
might again be solved. However Blackburn (1988) uses one of Donnellans own examples to
argue that this hope too is forlorn.
[I]n Reference and Definite Descriptions, Donnellan imagines a speaker at a
Temperance Union meeting saying The man drinking a martini, whoever he is, is
breaking the rules of our club. This is a Russellian [i.e. attributive] use of an
incomplete description. but[t]he speaker may be unable to say whether he
means the man at this meeting who is drinking a martini or the man in our club who
is drinking a martini, or the man in this house who is drinking a martini. (Blackburn
1988: 276; emphasis in original.)
Blackburn suggests that a person using an incomplete definite description is actually tacitly
alluding to a vague class of propositions determined by various ways of completing the

5
The distinction between complete and incomplete descriptions is similar to Lbners (1985)
distinction between semantic definites and pragmatic definites.
8
incomplete description, and what she says is true if all of these, or perhaps a weighted
majority (271), are true.
Neale (1990), citing a number of predecessors including Sellars (1954), Sainsbury (1979)
and Davies (1981), argues that the problem of incomplete descriptions is not confined to definite
descriptions but is faced equally by (other) quantified NPs. Consider (11):
(11) Everyone was sick.
uttered by Neale in response to a question about how his dinner party the previous night had
gone.
Clearly I do not mean to be asserting that everyone in existence was sick, just that
everyone at the dinner party I had last night was. Similar examples can be
constructed using no, most, just one, exactly eight, and, of course, the.
Indeed, the problem of incompleteness has nothing to do with the use of definite
descriptions per se; it is a quite general fact about the use of quantifiers in natural
language. (Neale 1990: 950; emphasis in original)
Neales main concern was to defend Russells quantificational analysis of definite
descriptions and it sufficed for that end to argue that the incompleteness problem is general. In
addition, however, following Sellars (1954) and Quine (1940), Neale supported an approach on
which incomplete NPs are seen as elliptical for some fuller expression or expression content.
There have been many variations on this theme: see Stanley & Szab (2000) and the works cited
there for examples. The main drawback has been discomfort at the fact that the elided content
must often be indeterminate, for both speaker and addressee.
There are several other general lines of approach to the problem of incompleteness
currently on offer. One very popular one is to shrink the domain of evaluation of the NPs in
question, so that the descriptive content is satisfied uniquely as intended. Barwise & Perry
(1983) speak in terms of RESOURCE SITUATIONS, Westersthl (1985) introduces CONTEXT SETS,
Hawkins (1984, 1991) invokes contextually supplied PRAGMATIC SETS or P-SETS, and Roberts
(2000) postulates a concept of INFORMATIONAL UNIQUENESS, which is uniqueness relative to the
discourse situation. (Cf. also Recanati 1996.) Stanley & Szab (2000) propose indexing
nominals with functions from discourse entities to restricted sets.
McCawley (1979) used example (12) to argue that the relevant domains of nominal
interpretation must be structured in terms of prominence:
(12) Yesterday the dog got into a fight with a dog. The dogs were snarling and
snapping at each other for half an hour. Ill have to see to it that the dog doesnt
get near that dog again. [ =McCawley 1979, ex. 21]
Lewis (1979), citing McCawleys example, concluded: The proper treatment of descriptions
must be more like this: the F denotes x if and only if x is the most salient F in the domain of
discourse, according to some contextually determined salience ranking (348; emphasis added);
and he went on to argue that salience rankings could change in the course of a discourse. Finally,
Bach (1994, 2000) has argued for a more thoroughly pragmatic approach, where the content that
would make an NP literally accurate is viewed as a conversational IMPLICITURE (as opposed to
implic-a-ture) something between what is literally expressed and what is conversationally
implicated in Grices sense (Grice 1975). (See also Bach 1987.) This problem is still the subject
of discussion; in addition to the works cited above, see Soames (1986), Reimer (1998), Neale
(2001), Taylor (2001), and see Bach (this volume).
9
3.3 The problem of non-unique definite descriptions.
A small group of problematic cases for Russells analysis needs to be distinguished from
instances of incomplete descriptions as described and discussed above. These are singular
definite descriptions which are used to refer to entities which are typically or always NOT the
only entity to which the descriptive content of the NP applies, even in a restricted domain of
evaluation. Consider the examples in (13):
(13) a. Towards evening we came to the bank of a river. [from Christophersen 1939: 140]
b. The boy scribbled on the living-room wall. [ =Du Bois 1980, ex. 86]
c. J ohn was hit on the arm. [ =Ojeda 1993, ex. 1]
Rivers always have two banks, rooms have more than one wall, and people have two arms, and
there seems to be no reasonable way to reduce the context so as to exclude the other items falling
under the description used without also excluding essential entities such as the river, the living-
room, and J ohn, in the examples given. As pointed out by Birner & Ward (1994), in each of
these examples the definite description gives a location. In other types of sentences these NPs
are infelicitous:
(14) a. #The bank of the Thames is the personal property of the Queen.
b. #Mary painted the living room wall.
Why are definite descriptions used in sentences like (13)? Du Bois makes the interesting
observation that in these cases, despite the nonuniqueness of potential referents, use of the
indefinite article would be odd. Cf. (15):
(15) #He scribbled on a living-room wall. [ =Du Bois 1980, ex. 88]
Du Bois points out that (15) gives the impression of being unnaturally precise (Du Bois 1980:
233), and seems to carry the unwanted implication that the hearer might care which wall was
being scribbled on.
6
3. Familiarity
The chief competitor for the uniqueness approach to capturing the essence of definiteness has
been an approach in terms of FAMILIARITY, or KNOWNNESS to use Bolingers term (Bolinger 1977).
The locus classicus of this approach within the tradition of descriptive grammars is
Christophersen 1939: Now the speaker must always be supposed to know which individual he
is thinking of; the interesting thing is that the the-form supposes that the hearer knows it too
(Christophersen 1939: 28). The concept of familiarity which Christophersen has in mind here
seems quite similar to Prince (1992)s concept of HEARER-OLD INFORMATION, which she aligns with
the idea of information which is in the permanent registry (Kuno 1972), or culturally
copresent (Clark and Marshall 1981). (Prince contrasts Hearer-old information with the
narrower category of Discourse-old information, which includes only entities which have been
mentioned in the previous discourse.) Prince notes that the category of definite NPs, defined in
terms of form, correlates well with conveyers of Hearer-old information, but that the correlation
is not perfect: some NPs which are definite in form can introduce entities not assumed to be

6
There are a few other types of non-unique definites. See Abbott 2001 for a fairly complete
catalog, discussion, and further references.
10
known to the addressee at the time of the utterance. She gives the examples in (16) (=Prince
1992, ex. 5).
(16) a. There were the same people at both conferences.
b. There was the usual crowd at the beach.
7
c. There was the stupidest article on the reading list.
The role of existential sentences, like those in (16), as a diagnostic for indefiniteness will be
explored below in 4.
3.1 Heims approach and donkey sentences
The familiarity approach to definiteness received a major boost, especially among more formally
inclined semanticists, with the appearance of Irene Heims 1982 University of Massachusetts
dissertation The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. (See also Heim 1983.) A
major concern of Heims dissertation was a solution to the problem of what have come to be
called DONKEY SENTENCES, after the example used by Peter Geach to introduce the problem to
modern readers:
(17) Any man who owns a donkey beats it. [ =Geach 1962: 117, ex. 12]
A central aspect of the problem created by such sentences is the interpretation of the phrase a
donkey. Ordinarily the logical form of sentences with indefinite NPs is given with an existential
quantifier, as shown in (2a), repeated here:
(2) A student arrived.
a. x[Student(x) & Arrived(x)]
If we do that in this case, we would assign (17) the logical form in (17a):
(17) a. x[Man(x) & y[Donkey(y) & Own(x, y)] Beat(x, y)]
But the final occurrence of the variable y escapes being bound by the existential quantifier in this
formula, which thus expresses the thought Any man who owns a donkey beats something not
the intended interpretation.
As noted by Geach, we can assign (17) the logical form in (17b), which seems to give us the
right truth conditions.
(17) b. xy[[Man(x) & Donkey(y) & Own(x, y)] Beat(x, y)]
However this is ad hoc. Furthermore the universal quantifier would not be appropriate in the
case of (2): used there we would assign (2) the meaning Every student arrived, which is
definitely not correct. But if we use sometimes an existential quantifier and sometimes a
universal, we suggest an ambiguity in indefinite NPs which is not felt.
Heims elegant solution to this problem involved a novel approach to semantic
interpretation called FILE CHANGE SEMANTICS. Drawing on prior work by Karttunen (1969, 1976),
Heim took mini-discourses like that in (18) as illustrating prototypical uses of indefinite and
definite NPs:
(18) A woman sat with a cat on her lap. Shestroked the cat and it purred.

7
For some speakers this example may be ambiguous, meaning roughly there were the same
people as usual at the beach or the beach was crowded, as usual. Prince (personal
communication) says that she intended the latter of the two readings.
11
On this view a major function of indefinite NPs is to introduce new entities into the discourse,
while definite NPs are used to refer to existing discourse entities. Heim analyzed both indefinite
and definite NPs as nonquantificational; instead their interpretation involves only a variable, plus
whatever descriptive content may reside in the remainder of the NP. Following Karttunen (cf.
also du Bois 1980), Heim likened a discourse to the building up of a file, where the variables in
question are seen as indexes on FILE CARDS representing discourse entities and containing
information about them.
The difference between indefinite and definite NPs is expressed with Heims NOVELTY and
FAMILIARITY conditions, respectively. Indefinite NPs are required to introduce a new variable
(corresponding to the act of getting out a new blank file card). On the other hand definite NPs are
required to be interpreted with a variable which has already been introduced, and (in the case of a
definite description as opposed to a pronoun) whose corresponding file card contains a
description congruent with that used in the definite NP. This explicates the idea that definite
NPs presuppose existence of a referent, together with the idea that presuppositions are best seen
as background information or the common ground assumed in a discourse (cf. Stalnaker 1974,
1978; cf. Abbott 2000 for a contrary view).
On this approach an example like (2) (A student arrived) would receive an interpretation as
in (2d):
(2) d. Student(x) & Arrived(x)
The existential quantification needed for this example is introduced by a general discourse level
rule, requiring that file cards match up with actual entities for the discourse to be true. However
if indefinite NPs fall within the scope of a quantified NP, as happens in donkey sentences, the
variable they introduce is automatically bound by that dominating NPs quantifier. Thus Heims
File Change Semantics yields an interpretation for (17) which is equivalent to that in (17b), but
without requiring two different interpretations for indefinite NPs.
8
3.3 Unfamiliar definites & accommodation
The familiarity approach to the definiteness-indefiniteness contrast seems to imply that any
definite description must denote an entity which has been explicitly introduced into the discourse
context or is common knowledge between speaker and addressee, but of course that is not always
the case. Consider her lap in (17) (assumed to be a definite description). This possessive
denotes an entity which has not been specifically introduced.
Heims solution for this kind of case relied on a principle introduced in David Lewiss
classic paper Scorekeeping in a language game (Lewis 1979). In this paper Lewis compared the
process of a conversation to a baseball game. One major DISanalogy is the fact that, while the
score in a baseball game can only be changed by events on the field, the conversational
scoreboard frequently undergoes adjustment just because the speaker behaves as though a

8
Unfortunately this elegant solution to the donkey sentence problem eventually ran afoul of
several problems, and Heim herself abandoned it in Heim 1990. The donkey sentence problem
continues to attract a stream of contributions to the literature while resisting satisfactory
solution: cf. e.g. Kadmon (1990), Kanazawa (1994), Chierchia (1995), Lappin & Francez (1996),
Dekker (1996).
12
change has been made. The relevant principle in this case is Lewiss RULE OF ACCOMMODATION FOR
PRESUPPOSITIONS:
If at time t something is said that requires presupposition P to be acceptable, and if P
is not presupposed just before t, then ceteris paribus and within certain limits
presupposition P comes into existence at t. (Lewis 1979: 340)
As stated, and without cashing out the ceteris paribus clause, Lewiss rule of accommodation is
extremely strong strong enough to make familiarity virtually vacuous as a theory of definiteness
(cf. Abbott 2000). Heim sought to rein in its power with a condition that accommodated entities
be linked to existing discourse entities, in a move which explicitly recalled the phenomenon of
BRIDGING (Clark 1977). The idea is that when entities have been explicitly introduced into a
discourse, addressees will automatically make assumptions about entities associated with them,
following our knowledge of the properties and relations things in a given category typically have.
In the case of her lap in example (18), the link is obvious once a seated person has been
introduced, the existence of their lap may be inferred.
Despite the addition of a constrained accommodation rule, there remain difficult cases for
the familiarity approach. Descriptions whose semantic content entails a unique referent, like
those in (19), require the definite article, and this is difficult for familiarity views to account for.
(19) a. Harold bought the/#a first house he looked at.
b. The instructor assigned the/#some most difficult exercises she could find.
c. In her talk, Baldwin introduced the/#a notion that syntactic structure is derivable
from pragmatic principles. [ =Birner & Ward 1994, ex. 1a]
There are other examples where the referent of a definite description does not seem to be
assumed to be familiar to the addressee, salient in the context, or otherwise already accessible in
the discourse. Examples like those in (19) and (20) are sometimes called CATAPHORIC, since the
uniquely identifying information follows the definite article.
(20) a. Whats wrong with Bill? Oh, the woman he went out with last night was nasty to
him. [ =Hawkins 1978, ex. 3.16]
b. If youre going into the bedroom, would you mind bringing back the big bag of
potato chips that I left on the bed? [ =Birner & Ward 1994, ex. 1b]
c. Marys gone for a spin in the car she just bought. [ =Lyons 1999, ex. 18, p. 8]
One could argue that these are simply cases of accommodation, and point out that in each case
the intended referent bears some relation to an entity which has already been introduced into the
discourse context, but nevertheless they seem contrary to at least the spirit of the familiarity
type of approach.
3.3 Attempts at a synthesis
In a sense the uniqueness and familiarity theories of definiteness are odd foes. Uniqueness of
applicability of the descriptive content, as explicated in Russells analysis, is a strictly semantic
property while the assumption of familiarity to the addressee is discourse-pragmatic in nature.
A priori one might have supposed the two to be complementary rather than at odds, and indeed,
there have been attempts to derive each from the other. Accepting both as correct in some sense,
the idea of deriving familiarity from uniqueness is likely to strike one first since we generally
suppose semantic properties to be arbitrary and pragmatic ones to be natural (if not inevitable)
13
consequences of semantic facts plus the exigencies of the conversational situation. This was the
approach sketched in e.g. Hawkins (1984) and Abbott (1999). However, with the development
of dynamic theories like Heims that embed sentence semantics into analyses of discourse, this
old distinction becomes blurred. Heim raised familiarity to a principle of semantics, making it
possible to suggest instead that the uniqueness requirement could be derived from it (cf. Heim
1982: 234ff.). Szab (2000) and Roberts (2000) have also taken this approach to unification.
J ust as some have assumed that both uniqueness and familiarity are correct, others have
argued in effect that neither is. Birner & Ward (1994) present problematic examples for both
approaches, some of which have been cited above, and conclude that neither gives a correct
account of definite descriptions. Lyons (1999), too, reviews existing theories in both camps and
concludes that neither is synchronically correct.
Examples like those in (19) and (20) have led other authors to abandon familiarity (which
implies prior acquaintance) in favor of a concept of IDENTIFIABILITY. The idea is that use of the
definite conveys to the addressee that they ought to be able to determine a unique referent from
the description used plus contextual or background information, whether or not they had prior
acquaintance with it. Birner & Ward 1998 point out that the term identify suggests that an
addressee is able to pick the referent out in the world at large. They argue instead that
what is required for felicitous use of the definite article (and most uses of other
definites) is that the speaker must believe that the hearer is able to individuate the
referent in question from all others within the discourse model. (Birner & Ward 1998:
122; italics in original.)
This is an idea which many have found attractive.
On the other hand Lyons (1999) argues that definiteness is a GRAMMATICALIZED category:
that originally definite NPs were understood to denote identifiable entities, but as a consequence
of the categorys becoming grammaticalized have acquired other uses. This is another way to
attempt a synthesis between these two approaches, although there is a drawback in loss of ready
formalizability.
Yet another way is to give up the idea that there is one particular property which applies in
equal strength to all and only definite NPs. Bolinger (1977) suggested two moves in this
direction. One is to distinguish grammatical definiteness from semantic definiteness (cf. also the
remarks of Prince 1992 with respect to examples like (16) above). The other is to assert that
definiteness, which Bolinger equates with knownness, is a matter of degree. Bolinger
distinguished five subcategories, from third person anaphoric pronouns (the most definite),
through proper names, anaphoric NPs, cataphoric NPs, to the indefinite superlative as in
Princes example (16c) above. It could be argued that the last category is not semantically
definite at all, and similar remarks would go for the indefinite this (Prince 1981) as in (21)
(21) There is this huge boulder sitting in the driveway.
Bolingers graded concept of knownness may lie behind the intuitive ranking in Table 1. above.
Others have also proposed a graded account. In the approach of Mira Ariel (Ariel 1988,
1990) the form of referential NPs marks the ACCESSIBILITY of their referent, where Accessibility
in turn is a function of such factors as distance between antecedent and anaphor, competition
with other potential referents, and salience, which is primarily determined by topichood. Third
person pronouns and gaps are markers of a high level of Accessibility, demonstrative pronouns
encode an intermediate level, and definite descriptions and proper names mark low Accessibility.
14
Similarly Gundel, Hedberg and Zacharski (1993) group NP types along an implicational hierarchy
based on COGNITIVE STATUS roughly, the degree to which an NPs referent is assumed to be
known to the addressee. Their GIVENNESS HIERARCHY is given below.
(22) The Givenness Hierarchy [ =Gundel et al. 1993, ex. 1]:
In focus > Activated > Familiar > Uniquely >
identifiable
Referential > Type
identifiable
it
that
this
this N
that N the N
indefinite this
N
a N
Each status requires a certain degree of givenness as a minimal condition of use, with the weakest
degree being TYPE IDENTIFIABILITY i.e. familiarity with the category named by the noun (or
common noun phrase) in question. Items to the left must meet that condition but also have
additional requirements. Hence phrases to the right may be used in circumstances suitable for
more highly ranked items, but Gricean conversational implicatures (Grice 1975) result from
failure to use the most highly ranked item allowed in the context.
A problem with this type of approach, on which NP forms are held to encode degrees of
accessibility, is that it fails to recognize plausible explanations for the correlations between NP
type and degree of accessibility e.g. the more accessible a referent is, the less the descriptive
information which needs to be included in the NP. See Bach (this volume, n. 36), and Abbott
(2001, n. 2).
We turn now to two other semantic properties whose history is entwined with the
definiteness-indefiniteness issue.
4. Existential sentences and the weak/strong distinction
In the early days of transformational grammar, the contrast shown in (23) attracted attention.
9
(23) a. There is a wolf at the door. [ =Milsark 1977, ex. 5a]
b. * There is the wolf at the door. [ =Milsark 1977, ex. 5b]
Sentences like (23a) are called EXISTENTIAL or There-insertion sentences. The initial diagnosis
pointed to an unidentified problem with definite NPs in such sentences, and the term
DEFINITENESS RESTRICTION or DEFINITENESS EFFECT came into common usage to reference this
problem.
4.1 Milsarks analysis
Milsark (1974, 1977) provided the first thorough attempt within the Chomskyan linguistic
tradition to find an explanatory analysis of the constraint just cited. He pointed out that the
diagnostic of felicitous occurrence in an existential sentence served to categorize NPs in general,
as seen in (24).

9
I have asterisked (23b), as was customary at the time, although many would assume that this
example is infelicitous rather than downright ungrammatical. (Cf. the discussion of Barwise &
Cooper 1981, below.) The issue is complex: see Abbott 1993 and the works cited there for
discussion.
15
(24) a. There are some/several/many/few wolves at the door.
b. * There are most/all/those/Bettys wolves at the door.
Noting a problem in extending the traditional terms indefinite and definite to other
determiners, Milsark coined the terms WEAK and STRONG for those NPs which do and do not fit
easily in existentials, respectively. The weak NPs, also termed CARDINAL, are those with
determiners like a/an, some, several, many, and the number determiners (one, two, three, ) ,
The strong NPs are those traditionally called definite, i.e. definite descriptions, demonstratives,
possessives, and pronouns, as well as NPs determined by universal quantifiers (all, every, each)
or by most. Milsarks explanation for the definiteness effect was that (a) all of the strong
determiners involve a quantificational element (hence the alternate term QUANTIFICATIONAL for the
strong determiners) and (b) this quantificational element is incompatible with the existential
quantification expressed by there be.
One subtle complication was observed by Milsark: his weak determiners in fact have two
distinct uses a weak one and a strong one. Compare the examples in (25) and (26).
(25) a. I would like some (sm) applesauce. [from Postal 1966: 204, n. 7]
b. There werent many students in class this morning.
(26) a. Some (of the) participants preferred to wait outside.
b. Many (of the) students objected to their grades after class.
It is a characteristic of weak determiners that, on their weak reading, they cannot occur with
predications of relatively permanent properties INDIVIDUAL LEVEL properties in the sense of
Carlson (1977). However the strong senses of weak determiners can occur in such predications.
(27) a. * Sm salesmen are intelligent.
b. Some (of the) salesmen (but not others) are intelligent.
Carlson (1977) pointed out that the distinction in predication between individual level
properties and relatively ephemeral STAGE LEVEL properties correlates with an even more dramatic
difference in interpretation in bare NPsNPs with plurals or mass nouns as head and no overt
determiner:
(28) a. Salesmen are intelligent.
b. Salesmen are knocking on the door.
(28a), with an individual level predicate, can only mean that salesmen in general are intelligent.
This is a quasi-universal reading. On the other hand (28b) means that some particular salesmen
are knocking on the door, an existential interpretation. Correspondingly in existential sentences
bare NPs have only their existential readings, and weak NPs do not have a felicitous strong
reading.
(29) a. There are salesmen {knocking on the door/*intelligent}.
b. * There were some (of the) participants waiting outside.
(It should be noted, though, that (29a), with intelligent, is much worse than (29b), even on the
strong partitive reading, and that some may in fact find the latter quite acceptable.)
Although Milsark appeared to have proposed an elegant solution to the problem of the
definiteness effect in existential sentences, it is not without problems. On the one hand proper
names, which are intuitively definite and pass Milsarks two tests for strength (infelicitous
occurrence in existentials and ability to take individual-level predication) have traditionally been
interpreted as logical constants, NOT quantificational expressions. On the other hand with the
16
appearance of Barwise & Cooper 1981, following Montague (1973), it became customary in
some quarters to view ALL NPs as quantificational, more specifically as GENERALIZED QUANTIFIERS,
or expressions denoting sets of sets. This development obliterates Milsarks tidy distinction as
well as his explanation for the definiteness effect.
4.2 Barwise & Coopers generalized quantifier approach
Consider a simple sentence structure as in (30)
(30) a. Det As are Bs.
b. Some/all/most activities are brainless.
On the generalized quantifier approach determiners are viewed as expressing relations between
two sets the one denoted by the common noun phrase (CNP) with which the determiner
combines (the A set in (30a)) and the one denoted by the verb phrase (the B set). An
equivalent alternative way of viewing determiners is as functions from sets (the CNP or A set)
to sets of sets, the generalized quantifier interpretation of NPs. (NPs consisting of just a proper
name also denote a set of sets.) The resulting set of sets is equivalent to another function taking
sets (the VP, or B set) as argument and returning a truth value. Since quantified NPs and
proper names appear in exactly the same kind of syntactic contexts, strict compositionality
demands that they receive the same type of interpretation, and this was Montagues main
motivation in instituting generalized quantifiers. This was in marked contrast to the traditional
logical treatment, following Russell, where (as noted above) quantified NPs are not even
interpreted as constituents.
Barwise & Cooper (1981) developed many consequences for the generalized quantifier
approach to natural language, among them the weak/strong distinction. Barwise & Cooper
borrowed Milsarks terms weak and strong, but gave these terms their own formal definition.
On this definition it turns out that the strong determiners are those for which sentences of the
form Det CNP exist(s) is either a tautology or a contradiction in every world in which the
sentence has a truth value. Consider the examples in (31):
(31) a. Every unicorn exists.
b. Neither unicorn exists.
(31a) is vacuously true in the actual world, since there are no unicorns. It is also trivially true in
any world in which in which there are unicorns. Thus Every is a (positive) strong determiner.
(31b), according to Barwise & Cooper, presupposes the existence of exactly two unicorns and so
is undefined in the actual world. In any world in which this presupposition is satisfied, (31b) is
false. Neither is (negative) strong. On the other hand (31c), with the weak determiner many,
(31) c. Many unicorns exist.
is false in the actual world, but would be true in a possible world in which there were many
unicorns. (Barwise & Cooper did not distinguish strong readings of weak NPs, in effect treating
them as totally weak.)
If we accept Barwise & Coopers assumptions, the explanation for the infelicity of strong
NPs in existential sentences follows naturally. Existential sentences such as those in (32) (I
follow Barwise & Cooper in assuming now that (32a, b) are infelicitous rather than
ungrammatical)
(32) a. #There is every unicorn.
17
b. #There is neither unicorn.
c. There are many unicorns.
assert propositions equivalent to those in (31) namely they assert existence of a denotation for
the post verbal NP. With a strong determiner this assertion, if defined, is either tautological
((32a)) or contradictory ((32b)). Only with a weak determiner does an existential express
something interesting.
10
Although the Barwise & Cooper diagnosis of the definiteness effect in existential sentences
has a lot of appeal there are problems of a variety of sorts. First, it is necessary to their analysis
that whatever follows be in an existential (what Milsark referred to as the CODA of an
existential
11
) is a constituent, and in fact an NP. As they themselves noted, there are examples
for which this analysis is implausible at best. (33a) is a fine existential, but (33b) argues that the
coda is not an NP.
(33) a. There is a girl who knows you interested in this problem. [ =Barwise & Cooper
1981, ex. 5b., p. 206]
b. *I met a girl who knows you interested in this problem. [ =Barwise & Cooper
1981, ex. 5a, p. 206]
Secondly, as Keenan (1987) has pointed out, while Barwise & Coopers coverage of the data is
adequate for the determiners they consider, there are others which they would classify wrongly.
Either zero or else more than zero, for example, would be classified on Barwise & Coopers
account as positive strong, but it can occur felicitously in an existential:
(34) Look, there were either zero or else more than zero students there at the time. Now
which is it? [ =Keenan 1987, ex. 48a]
Finally, Keenan points out that Barwise & Cooper have no account for the difference in
grammaticality or felicity in (35)
(35) a. Every student exists.
b. There is every student.
since the two sentence types are equivalent in their analysis.
4.3 Keenans analysis
In his analysis of existential sentences Keenan breaks up the coda into two constituents the
postverbal NP and an additional phrase which can be of a variety of predicational types. Keenan

10
Like Milsark, Barwise & Cooper distinguished the categories weak/strong from
indefinite/definite, but unlike Milsark they proposed a definition of definiteness, one which was
motivated by an assumption that occurrence as the embedded NP in a partitive was a good
diagnostic for definiteness. Definites on their definition are necessarily proper principle filters:
this includes definite descriptions, proper names, and (presumably) demonstrative NPs (which
Barwise & Cooper did not analyze). However universally quantified NPs had to be excluded on
a somewhat ad hoc basis: if we assume they are presuppositional (see below), there would be no
way to exclude them. On the other hand partitivity has been argued not to be a good diagnostic
for definiteness anyway. See Ladusaw (1994), Abbott (1996), and Barker (1998) for discussion.
11
Let us define the word coda to mean any and all material to the right of be in ES [existential
sentences] (Milsark 1974: 8).
18
defines a subcategory of NP which he calls EXISTENTIAL, intended to capture those NPs which fit
naturally in the postverbal position in an existential sentence. Ignoring the formal details, the
definition applies to those for which the equivalence in (36) holds:
(36) Det As are Bs if and only if Det As who are Bs exist.
The fact that (37a) is equivalent to (37b), but (38a, b) differ, correctly classifies some as
existential and every as not existential.
(37) a. Some student is a vegetarian.
b. Some student who is a vegetarian exists.
(38) a. Every student is a vegetarian.
b. Every student who is a vegetarian exists.
Keenans explanation for the definiteness effect in existentials, then, is that it is only with
existential NPs that existential sentences express a predication equivalent to the exists
sentence.
Keenan notes in a footnote (317, n. 1) that the property of being an existential NP as
defined in (36) roughly coincides with two other semantic properties of determiners: SYMMETRY
and INTERSECTIVITY, defined respectively in (39).
(39) a. Det As are Bs if and only if Det Bs are As. [symmetry]
b. Det As are Bs if and only if Det As who are Bs are Bs. [intersectivity]
As Keenans article is titled A semantic definition of indefinite NP, presumably in his view
all three definitions converge on this property. Speaking loosely it is the property of having
truth conditions depend solely on the intersection of the set denoted by the CNP with which the
determiner combines (the A set in (36) and (39)) and the set denoted by the predicate (the B
set). The non-existential NPs require that something additional hold of the CNP denotation.
4.4 De Jong & Verkuyl and presuppositionality
De J ong & Verkuyl (1985) have another criticism of the Barwise & Cooper approach. Recall that
Barwise & Cooper treated every and neither differently. For them, every CNP is always defined
in other words it does not presuppose the existence of entities in the denotation of CNP. A
consequence is that a sentence of the form All As are Bs where A denotes the empty set, will be
true no matter what B denotes. Under these circumstances All As (e.g. all unicorns) is an
IMPROPER generalized quantifier. Informally this means that it does not sort predicates into two
nonempty classes those which are true of the subject and those which are not. Instead the
sentence is vacuously true for all predicates. On the other hand neither CNP does require a
presupposition that the universe of discourse contain exactly two referents for the CNP, and is
undefined when that is not the case, so neither CNP is always PROPER (some predicates will be
true of it and some false).
De J ong & Verkuyl argue that Barwise & Coopers decision on which determiners to treat
as presuppositional and which to treat as nonpresuppositional is arbitrary. De J ong & Verkuyl
argue in particular that the universal quantifiers, which Barwise & Cooper analyzed as
NONpresuppositional, are in fact presuppositional (and hence always proper). With this
modification de J ong & Verkuyl can argue that strength consists in properness or
presuppositionality.
19
There is much intuitive appeal in this approach. It also suggests a natural explanation for
the definiteness effect in existential sentences which is slightly different from those proposed
by Barwise & Cooper and by Keenan. If we assume, with most researchers, that existential
sentences assert existence, then we might attribute the infelicity of a strong NP, or a weak NP on
its strong reading, to a conflict between the assertion of existence of the there be construction and
the presupposition of existence which constitutes the strength of a strong NP. This is an
explanation which many have found appealing; cf. e.g. Woisetschlaeger (1983), de Jong &
Verkuyl (1985), de J ong (1987), Lakoff (1987), Lumsden (1988), Abbott (1993).
12
So, should we conclude from this that presuppositionality the assumption, rather than
assertion, of existence of a certain set of entities denoted by the NP is a candidate for the
essence of definiteness? There are two problems in so doing. One is the cases noted above
which are problematic for the familiarity approach to definiteness. If presuppositionality is
understood as a prior condition on the context of utterance, then examples like those in (18) and
(19) present a problem for this presuppositionality hypothesis.
13
The other problem is NPs
which everyone would regard as indefinite, but which have uses which are strong or
presuppositional. Recall that Milsark had pointed out strong uses of weak NPs, which do not
occur felicitously in existential sentences (e.g. the difference between sm apples and some (of the)
apples). Diesing (1992), Horn (1997), and others have argued that the crucial difference is exactly
that the strongly used weak NPs presuppose the existence of their referents, yet these weak NPs
(e.g. some (of the) apples) must still be regarded as indefinite in the traditional sense.
Furthermore in Horns view presuppositionality bifurcates tokens of universally quantified NPs:
while ordinary examples like that in (40a) presuppose a nonempty extension for the CNP, those
in law-like statements such as (40b) are nonpresuppositional.
(40) a. All of Johns children are bald.
b. All trespassers will be prosecuted. [ =Horn 1997, ex. 39a]
We will return to this issue below, in the section on the specific/nonspecific distinction.
14
To summarize this section, it seems clear that the weak-strong distinction must be
distinguished from the definite-indefinite distinction. The confounding of the two is probably a
natural consequence of the early hasty identification of the class of NPs which are infelicitous in
existential sentences as definite, and the label for their infelicity as the definiteness effect,
which Milsarks careful coining of the terms strong and weak was not able to avert entirely.

12
I am glossing over a number of difficult details in this brief summary. In particular, the
relevant notion of existence should be discourse, rather than real world, existence; note that the
contrast in (35) suggests that it is a different notion from the presumably real world one
expressed by the verb exist.
13
If presuppositions are regarded as nonassertions, as argued in Abbott 2000, then this problem
would not arise. Cf. also Bach (1999), Horn (2000).
14
This discussion glosses over a possible distinction in presupposition types. A singular definite
description like the solution to the problem presupposes not just that the set of solutions to the
problem is nonempty but in addition that there is only one. For NPs like all/some/several
solutions a mere presupposition of nonemptiness of the set of solutions is tantamount to
guaranteeing a referent for the NP.
20
5. Specificity
The discussion above touched on an ambiguity remarked by Milsark between weak and strong
uses of weak NPs. This ambiguity is reminiscent of one noted by a number of linguists (Fillmore
1967, Karttunen 1969, Partee 1972), and described in the early days of transformational grammar
as the SPECIFIC-NONSPECIFIC distinction. However there are indications that the two must be
distinguished.
Observe the examples in (41), among the earliest used to introduce this distinction into the
linguistics literature:
(41) a. I talked with a logician. [ =Karttunen 1969b, ch. 1, ex. 20a]
b. Some of my friends speak French. [ =Fillmore 1967, ex. 53]
Karttunen described (41a) as saying, on the specific reading, something about WHO the speaker
talked with, but on the nonspecific reading only something about the KIND of person the
speaker talked with. Similarly Fillmore noted that (41b) could be used to say of certain specific
friends of mine that they speak French (the specific reading), or merely to assert that I have
French-speaking friends (the nonspecific reading).
Fillmores description corresponds strikingly to a classic distinction which has recently
been revived between CATEGORICAL and THETIC statements, respectively. Roughly speaking
categorical statements have a topic and express a thought about that topic categorize it, much as
Fillmore describes the specific reading of (41b). On the other hand thetic statements present a
state of affairs as a whole, just as the nonspecific reading of (41b) is described. While the usually
cited founders of the categorical-thetic distinction are Brentano and his student Marty; the recent
revival is due especially to Kuroda (1972), who sought to use this distinction to help explain the
distinction in use between wa and ga in J apanese. (See also Ladusaw 1994, Horn 1997, and the
works cited there.)
This ambiguity seems similar to the strong-weak ambiguity but there are several problems
in making the identification. Note for one thing that Fillmores example uses a partitive NP.
Milsark used the partitive form to DISambiguate his examples, in favor of the strong reading, and
de Hoop (1991, 1996), En (1991), Diesing (1992), and others have suggested that the strong
readings are in some sense partitive in nature. Furthermore the predicate in Fillmores example
(speak French) is an individual-level rather than a stage-level property and this, according to
Milsark, should require the subject to have a strong reading. Karttunens example is problematic
too indefinite NPs with determiner a/an are supposed to be totally weak in Milsarks sense, i.e.
not to allow a strong reading at all (see Ladusaw 1994).
15
The literature in this area is filled with differences in terminology which may or may not
correspond to differences in data. Thus Fodor & Sag (1982), citing Chastain (1975) and Wilson
(1978), argued that indefinites have a REFERENTIAL reading in addition to their QUANTIFICATIONAL
one, illustrating the distinction with (42).

15
Horn (1997) assimilates Milsarks strength to presuppositionality and categoricality. If this is
correct, and if, as suggested here, strength is different from traditional specificity, then we cannot
align the traditional specific-nonspecific distinction with the categorical-thetic distinction.
21
(42) A student in the syntax class cheated on the final exam. [ =Fodor & Sag 1982, ex.
1]
They describe the difference in readings as follows:
someone who utters [42] might be intending to assert merely that the set of
students in the syntax class who cheated on the final exam is not empty; or he might
be intending to assert of some particular student, whom he does not identify, that this
student cheated. (Fodor & Sag 1982: 356)
This description is very similar to those given by Fillmore and Karttunen, as well as Milsark, but
the difference in terminology: for Milsark, quantificational means strongspecific in some
sense; for Fodor & Sag quantificational here means NON-specific. Fodor & Sag gave new
syntactic arguments for their referential reading; see King 1988 and Ludlow & Neale 1991 for
replies.
Haspelmath (1997) distinguishes nine distinct functions of indefinite pronouns. Most of
these are confined to particular constructions or context types not at issue here. However three
of his functions are relevant, two of which he calls specific and one nonspecific. The
difference between the two specific functions cited by Haspelmath is whether or not the
referent of the indefinite is known to the speaker. Now a common description of what is
distinctive about the traditional specific-nonspecific distinction is that it hangs on whether or not
the speaker has a particular individual in mind.
16
That being the case, we might identify this
feature as crucial for the traditional concept, as a way of distinguishing it from Milsarks concept
of strength.
The traditional specific-nonspecific distinction in indefinite NPs is quite parallel to the
referential-attributive distinction in definite NPs discussed above in 3.2. Compare Fodor &
Sags example (42) with Donnellans famous example, repeated here as (43):
(43) Smiths murderer is insane.
Uttered referentially (43) makes a statement about a particular person who is assumed to be the
murderer. On the attributive use, on the other hand, a general statement is made.
Both the specific-nonspecific distinction and the referential-attributive distinction must be
distinguished from the various scope ambiguities that arise with NPs in clauses which are
embedded under sentence operators such as modals, propositional attitude verbs, or other
quantificational NPs. None of the sentences used above to illustrate these distinctions have had
operators of this type. It should be noted, though, that the distinction in type of reading is very
similar, as noted by Partee (1972). Thus (44)
(44) J ohn would like to marry a girl his parents dont approve of. [ =Partee 1972, ex. 1]
has the traditional scope ambiguity. On the reading where the NP a girl has wide scope with
respect to the matrix clause, J ohn has his girl picked out and it happens to be the case that his
parents dont like her. On the reading where the NP a girl has narrow scope, J ohn apparently
wants to offend his parents by finding someone they disapprove of to marry. Clearly on the
former reading the interpretation is more specific than on the latter.

16
Cf. e.g. Quirk et al.: the reference is SPECIFIC, since we have in mind particular
specimens (265).
22
Partee points out that (45a) seems to have the same kind of ambiguity, and (45b) is not
very different from (45a).
(45) a. J ohn succeeded in marrying a girl his parents dont approve of. [ =Partee 1972, ex.
12]
b. J ohn married a girl his parents dont approve of. [ =Partee 1972, ex. 8]
However one important difference between the embedded vs. the unembedded cases is whether
the two interpretations can differ in truth value. In the case of sentences with sentence operators
and indubitable scope ambiguities, like (44), there clearly is a difference in truth conditions: either
of the two readings might be true in some circumstance without the other reading being true.
However in the case of (45b) this is less clear. Which brings us to the question of how best to
analyze the specific-nonspecific distinction.
As with the referential-attributive distinction for definite NPs, the main issue in analyzing
the specific-nonspecific contrast is whether it should be regarded as semantic or pragmatic.
Ludlow and Neale (1991) have argued most strongly that this distinction is a pragmatic one, just
as in their view the referential-attributive distinction is pragmatic. Their analysis is similar to the
one argued for by Kripke and sketched above in 2.2, namely, that there is a single set of truth
conditions for sentences like (45b), and the difference in construals consists only in whether the
speaker has a particular individual in mind or not.
Those who believe the distinction to be semantic have the problem of providing an
interpretation for the specific reading, assuming Russells analysis is correct for the nonspecific
reading. Consider the following slightly modified version of Karttunens example (41a):
(46) Mary talked to a logician.
For the specific reading what is needed is a particular logician for the sentence to be about. The
problem is how to determine this individual. A natural suggestion is to let that be determined by
the speakers intention, as in the analyses of Kasher & Gabbay (1976) and Fodor & Sag (1982).
However then we would have to say (46) was false on the specific understanding if Mary did
talk to a logician, but not the one the speaker had in mind.
This result seems to be a strong argument against this type of analysis. However Dekker
(1998) has put forward something of a compromise position. In Dekkers approach, utterances
may be enriched by the addition of contextual information, and this is how the specific reading of
indefinites, as well as the referential reading of definites, is obtained. More specifically, following
an utterance of (46), if there is contextually available information that the speaker had intended to
be talking about Marys conversation with, say, Carnap, then the information that the logician in
question was Carnap would be added, deriving the specific construal of (46). This contextually
available information is what licenses specific utterances. Dekker notes that a sentence like
(46) would be true as long as Mary had spoken with some logician or other, but it would not be
true as licensed.
17

17
Another possible direction which may warrant pursuing is to regard the semantic values of
specific indefinites (as well as referential definites) as constant individual concepts. This idea is
similar to one suggested by Dahl (1988), as well as Abbott (1994).
23
6. Concluding remarks
We have examined a number of distinctions and attempts to characterize them with varying
degrees of formality: uniqueness vs. nonuniqueness, familiarity vs. novelty, strength vs.
weakness, specificity vs. nonspecificity. Each has a foundation in intuition, as well as some
degree of grammatical effect. However it is not clear that any of them corresponds cleanly to
formal categories. As so frequently seems to be the case, grammar is willfully resistant to
attempts at tidy categorization.
REFERENCES
Abbott, Barbara. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences.
J ournal of Pragmatics 19, 39-55.
Abbott, Barbara. 1994. Referentiality, specificity, strength, and individual concepts. WCCFL
12: Proceedings of the 12
th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA:
CSLI, 473-484.
Abbott, Barbara. 1996. Doing without a partitive constraint. In J . Hoeksema, ed., Partitives:
Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter, 25-56.
Abbott, Barbara. 1999. Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions. SALT 9:
Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, 1-
15.
Abbott, Barbara. 2000. Presuppositions as nonassertions. J ournal of Pragmatics 32, 1419-
1437.
Abbott, Barbara. 2001. Definiteness and identification in English. Pragmatics in 2000: Selected
papers from the 7
th
international pragmatics conference, vol. 2. Antwerp: International
Pragmatics Association, 1-15.
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. J ournal of Linguistics 24, 65-87.
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Atlas, J ay David. To appear. Descriptions, linguistic topic/comment, and negative existentials:
A case study in the application of linguistic theory to problems in the philosophy of
language. In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer, eds. (to appear).
Bach, Kent. 1987. Thought and reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational Impliciture. Mind & Language 9, 124-162.
Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 327-
366.
Bach, Kent. 2000. Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Szab.
Mind & Language 15, 262-283.
Bach, Kent. To appear. Descriptions: Points of reference. In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer,
eds. (to appear).
Barker, Chris. 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 16, 679-717.
Barker, Chris. 2000. Definite possessives and discourse novelty. To appear in Theoretical
Linguistics.
24
Barwise, J on & J ohn Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics
and Philosophy 4, 159-219.
Bezuidenhout, Anne & Marga Reimer, eds. (to appear) Descriptions and beyond: An
interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other
related phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward. 1994. Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English.
BLS 20, 93-102.
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward. 1998. Informational status and noncanonical word order.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Blackburn, William K. 1988. Wettstein on definite descriptions. Philosophical Studies 53, 263-
278.
Bor, Steven & William Lycan. 1976. The myth of semantic presupposition. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. There. In Meaning and form, 90-123. London: Longman.
Brentano, Franz. [1874/1911] 1973. Psychology from an empirical point of view. Trans. By
A.C. Rancurello, et al. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Burge, Tyler. 1974. Demonstrative constructions, reference, and truth. J ournal of Philosophy
71, 205-223.
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and
Philosophy 1, 413-456.
Chastain, Charles. 1975. Reference and context. In K. Gunderson, ed., Minnesota Studies in the
Philosophy of Science, vol. 7: Language Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 194-269.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of
grammar.. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The articles: A study of their theory and use in English.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Clark, Herbert H. 1977. Bridging. In P.N. J ohnson-Laird & P.C. Wason, eds., Thinking:
Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 411-420.
Clark, Herbert H. & Catherine R. Marshall. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In
A. K. J oshi, B. L. Webber & I. A. Sag, eds., Elements of discourse understanding.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10-63.
Dahl, sten. 1988. The role of deduction rules in semantics. J ournal of Semantics 6, 1-18.
Davies, Martin. 1981. Meaning, quantification, necessity. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dekker, Paul. 1996. The values of variables in dynamic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy
19, 211-257.
Dekker, Paul. 1998. Speaker's reference, descriptions and information structure. J ournal of
Semantics 15, 305-334.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 77, 281-
304.
25
Du Bois, J ohn W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In W. L.
Chafe, ed., The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative
production. Norwood, NJ : Ablex, 203-274.
En, Mrvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25.
Fillmore, Charles J . 1967. On the syntax of preverbs. Glossa 1, 91-125.
von Fintel, Kai. To appear. Would you believe it? The King of France is back!
(Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer, eds. (to
appear).
Fodor, Janet Dean & Ivan A. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics
and Philosophy 5, 355-398.
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. ber Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift fr Philosophie und
Philosophische Kritik, 25-50. Trans. as On sense and reference, in P. Geach & M. Black,
eds., Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 56-
78.
Geach, Peter Thomas. 1962. Reference and generality: An examination of some medieval and
modern theories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Graff, Delia. 2001. Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical studies 102, 1-42.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J . L. Morgan, eds., Syntax and
semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
Gundel, J eanette K., Nancy Hedberg, & Ron Zacharski. 2001. Definite descriptions and
cognitive status in English: Why accommodation is unnecessary. In English Language and
Linguistics 5, 273-295.
Gundel, J eannette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of
referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274-307.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Explaining article-possessor complementarity: Economic
motivation in noun phrase syntax. Language 75, 227-243.
Hawkins, J ohn A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. Atlantic Highland, NJ : Humanities
Press.
Hawkins, J ohn A. 1984. A note on referent identifiability and co-presence. J ournal of
Pragmatics 8, 649-659.
Hawkins, J ohn A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction.
J ournal of Linguistics 27, 40-5-442.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.
Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R.
Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow, eds., Meaning, use and the interpretation of
language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 164-189.
Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13,
137-178.
Hoop, Helen de. 1991. Restrictions on existential sentence and object-scrambling: Some facts
from Dutch. WCCFL 9, 277-288.
Hoop, Helen de. 1996. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. New York: Garland.
26
Horn, Laurence R. 1997. All J ohn's children are as bald as the king of France: Existential import
and the geometry of opposition. In CLS 33: The Main Session, 155-179.
Horn, Laurence R. 2000. Assertoric inertia???
J ong, Franciska de & Henk Verkuyl. 1985. Generalized quantifiers: The properness of their
strength. In J . van Benthem & A. G.B. ter Meulen, eds., Generalized quantifiers in natural
language. Dordrecht: Foris, 21-43.
J ong, Franciska de. 1987. The compositional nature of (in)definiteness. In E. Reuland & A.
G.B. ter Meulen, eds., The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge: MIT Press, 286-
317.
Kadmon, Nirit. 1990. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273-324.
Kanazawa, Makoto. 1994. Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity
inference in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 109-158.
Kaplan, David. 1972. What is Russell's theory of descriptions? In D. F. Pears, ed., Bertrand
Russell: A collection of critical essays. New York: Doubleday, 227-244.
Kaplan, David. 1978. Dthat. In Peter Cole, ed., Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics. New
York: Academic Press, 221-243.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1969. Problems of reference in syntax. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
doctoral dissertation.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In J . D. McCawley, ed., Syntax and Semantics 7:
Notes from the linguistic underground. New York: Academic Press, 363-385.
Kasher, Asa & Dov M. Gabbay. 1976. On the semantics and pragmatics of specific and non-
specific indefinite expressions. Theoretical Linguistics 3, 145-190.
Keenan, Edward L. 1987. A semantic definition of 'indefinite NP'. In E. J . Reuland & A. G. B.
ter Meulen, eds., The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 286-
318.
King, J effrey C. 1988. Are indefinite descriptions ambiguous? Philosophical Studies 53, 417-
440.
Kripke, Saul. 1972. Naming and necessity. In D. Davidson & G. Harman, eds., Semantics of
natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 253-355 and 763-769.
Kripke, Saul. 1977. Speaker's reference and semantic reference. In P. A. French, T. E. Uehling,
J r., & H. Wettstein, eds., Midwest Studies in Philosophy Volume II: Studies in the
philosophy of language. Morris, MN: University of Minnesota, 255-276.
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from J apanese and
English. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 269-320.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 2, 153-
185.
Ladusaw, William A. 1982. Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction. WCCFL
1, 231-242.
Ladusaw, William A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. SALT
4, 220-229.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lappin, Shalom & Nissim Francez. 1994. E-type pronouns, i-sums, and donkey anaphora.
Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 391-428.
27
Larson, Richard & Gabriel Segal. 1995. Knowledge of Meaning: An introduction to semantic
theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339-359.
Lbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. J ournal of Semantics 4, 279-326.
Ludlow, Peter & Stephen Neale. 1991. Indefinite descriptions: In defense of Russell.
Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 171-202.
Lumsden, Michael. 1988. Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning. London: Croom
Helm.
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCawley, J ames D. 1979. Presupposition and discourse structure. In C-K. Oh & D. Dinneen,
eds., Syntax and semantics, vol. 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 371-388.
McCawley, J ames D. 1993. Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic
but were ashamed to ask. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT doctoral
dissertation. Page references are to the 1976 edition published by the Indiana University
Linguistics Club.
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential
construction in English. Linguistic analysis 3, 1-29.
Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In J .
Hintikka, J . Moravcsik & P. Suppes, eds., Approaches to natural language: Proceedings of
the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 221-242.
Neale, Stephen. 1990. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Neale, Stephen. To appear. This, that, and the other. In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer, eds.
(to appear).
Ojeda, Almerindo E. 1993. New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. ESCOL 93,
247-258.
Ostertag, Gary, ed. 1998. Definite descriptions: A reader. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Partee, Barbara Hall. 1972. Opacity, coreference, and pronouns. In D. Davidson & G. Harman,
eds., Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 415-441.
Peacocke, Christopher. 1975. Proper names, reference, and rigid designation. In S. Blackburn,
ed., Meaning, reference, necessity, 109-132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reprinted in G. Ostertag, ed., 1998, Definite descriptions: A reader, 201-224. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1966. On so-called pronouns in English. In F. Dinneen, ed., the 19
th
monograph on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press. Reprinted 1969 in D. A. Reibel & S. A. Schane, eds., Modern studies in English:
Readings in transformational grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 201-224.
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite this NPs. In A. K. J oshi, B. L. Webber, &
I. A. Sag, eds., Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 231-250.
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In W. C.
Mann & S. A. Thompson, eds., Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a
fund-raising text. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295-326.
28
Quine, W.V. 1940. Mathematical logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & J an Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive
grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
Recanati, Franois. 1996. Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 445-475.
Reimer, Marga. 1998. Quantification and context. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 95-115.
Reuland, Eric J . & Alice G. B. ter Meulen, eds.. 1987. The representation of (in)definiteness.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-20.
Roberts, Craige. 2000. Demonstratives as definites. To appear in K. von Deemter & R. Kibble,
eds., Information sharing. Stanford: CSLI.
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14, 479-493.
Sainsbury, R.M. 1979. Russell. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sellars, Wilfred. 1954. Presupposing. Philosophical Review 63, 197-215.
Soames, Scott. 1986. Incomplete definite descriptions. Notre Dame J ournal of Formal Logic
27, 349-375. Reprinted in G. Ostertag, ed., 1998, Definite descriptions: A reader, 275-308.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. K. Munitz & P. K. Unger, eds.,
Semantics and philosophy. New York: New York University Press, 197-214.
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In P. Cole, ed., Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics.
New York, Academic Press: 315-322.
Stanley, J ason & Zoltn Gendler Szab. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind &
Language 15, 219-261.
Stockwell, Robert P., Paul Schachter, & Barbara Hall Partee. 1973. The major syntactic
structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Strawson, P.F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59, 320-344.
Szab, Zoltn Gendler. 2000. Descriptions and uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101, 29-57.
Taylor, Kenneth A. 2001. Sex, breakfast, and descriptus interruptus. Synthse 128, 45-61.
Walker, Marilyn A. & Ellen F. Prince. 1996. A bilateral approach to givenness: A Hearer-Status
Algorithm and a Centering Algorithm. In T. Fretheim & J . K. Gundel, eds., Reference and
referent accessibility. Philadelphia: J ohn Benjamins, 291-306.
Walker, Marilyn A., Aravind K. J oshi & Ellen F. Prince, eds. 1998. Centering theory in
discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Westersthl, Dag. 1985. Determiners and context sets. In J . van Benthem & A. ter Meulen,
eds., Generalized quantifiers in natural language. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 45-72.
Wettstein, Howard. 1981. Demonstrative reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical
Studies 40, 241-257. Reprinted in Ostertag, ed., 256-273.
Wilson, George M. 1984. Pronouns and pronominal descriptions: A new semantical category.
Philosophical Studies 45, 1-30.
Wilson, George M. 1991. Reference and pronominal descriptions. J ournal of Philosophy 88,
359-387.
Wilson, George. 1978. On definite and indefinite descriptions. Philosophical Review 87, 48-
76.
Woisetschlaeger, Erich. 1983. On the question of definiteness in an old mans book. Linguistic
Inquiry 14, 137-154.