On the property analysis of opaque complements

Abstract

In this paper, we regard Zimmermann's [Natural Language Semantics 1 (1993) 149] property analysis of verbs of absence as a special case of the independent ability of verbs to take property-type complements [Ladusaw, W.A. (1994). Proceedings of SALT IV. Ithaca: CLC Publications, p. 220]. By integrating into this analysis a Quinian decomposition of verbs of absence we can tease apart the distinction between opaque and transparent, nonspecific complements, as well as the distinction between de dicto and de re readings of nonspecific complements. This prevents us from overgeneralizing transparent readings of inherently opaque complements and inherently opaque verbs and it helps us to answer some criticisms that Moltmann [Natural Language Semantics 5 (1997) 1] raises against Zimmermann's proposal. #

The structure of (in)definiteness

“…However, it would be an error to believe that just any semantic difference can be explained by appeal to a distinct projection (the de dicto/de re distinction is a case in point, see van Geenhoven and McNally, 2005). It is important to stress that the syntactic mapping envisioned here is useful only insofar it allows semantic hypothesis to be tested with syntactic means: restrictions on cooccurrence and linear order, conjunction with other projections, movement, subject/object asymmetries, etc.…”

“…In some cases the semantic decomposition might be hard to justify Van Geenhoven and McNally (2005). discuss the case of resemble, but there are other difficult examples.…”

On "needing" Propositions and "looking for" Properties

“…3 It has been noted in the literature already that there is a clear contrast between verbs like need and look for in this respect (Van Geenhoven and McNally 2005). This difference comes as no surprise after the preceding sections, as it patterns with the observations made there: low scope is possible with need, but not with look for, for example in the following sentences:…”

Variation in the expression of universal quantification and free choice

“…If they did, they should be able to quantifier-raise across the negative operator, in which case they would outscope it at LF. See Carlson (1977) and McNally & van Geenhoven (2005), among others, for relevant discussion. 4 (21) Mary did not buy horses.…”