487
ural language semantics does not seem to
depend on a solution of these issues.
The semantic theory of quantification is
reasonably well developed, but the area of
quantification and syntax is another matter.
The main open questions are:
1. How is the ‘variable binding paradigm’
from first order logic — employed both in
the GB theory of LF and in Montague
grammar — related to the ‘state change
semantics paradigm’ from dynamic logic
that is employed in the Kamp/Heim theory
of Logical Form?
2. How are LFs for natural language expres-
sions involving higher type quantification
connected to surface syntactic forms?
As to the second question, it seems clear that
a combination of paradigms is called for. Gi-
ven that the two paradigms treat indefinite
descriptions in a different way — one para-
digm assimilates them to quantifiers, the
other one does not — this raises the question
how indefinites are to be treated in a combi-
ned theory. Also, the line between anaphora
resolution by binding and anaphora resolu-
tion by linking needs to be drawn.
Although the theories discussed in section
4 provide a partial answer to the first que-
stion, for most of the irreducibly higher type
quantifiers that we have encountered in sec-
tion 3 we have no systematic way of deriving
them from syntactic surface structures. The
compositional connection between syntactic
structures and the higher type generalized
quantifiers that are needed to state their truth
conditions has not yet been found. Of course,
adherents to the Misleading Form Thesis will
22. Artikel und Definitheit
1. Der bestimmte Artikel
1.1 Die Russellsche Deutung und ihre Rechtfer-
tigung
1.2 Existenz- und Einzigkeitsbedingung als Prä-
supposition, Fregesche Deutung
1.3 Referentieller und attributiver Gebrauch
1.4 Bereichswahl: Kontextabhängigkeit und Ana-
phorizität
1.5 Sonstiges
2. Der unbestimmte Artikel
2.1 Ein als Existenzquantor
2.2 Spezifische und unspezifische Lesart
2.3 Sonstiges
say that this is no accident. This should not
disturb natural language semanticists, howe-
ver. Rather than admitting defeat they should
carry on looking for the missing links.
This paper has benefited from comments by Johan
van Benthem, David Carter, H ans Peter Kolb,
Fernando Pereira, Elias Thijsse, Dieter Wunder-
lich, and two anonymous Handbook referees. Jane
Gardiner gave valuable advice on English prose
style. Thank you all.
6. Short Bibliography
Barwise 1979 · Barwise 1987a · Barwise/Cooper
1981 · van Benthem 1983b · van Benthem 1983c ·
van Benthem 1984b · van Benthem 1986a · van
Benthem 1986b · van Benthem 1989 · Church
1940 · Cooper 1975 · Cooper 1983 · van Dalen
19832 · Davidson 1967 · van Eijck 1985a · van Eijck
1985b · Evans 1980 · Frege 1879 · Frege 1891 ·
Frege 1892 · Geach 1962 · Geach 1970 · Geach
1972 · Groenendijk/Stokhof 1987 · H eim 1982 ·
H endriks 1987 · H igginbotham/May 1981 · H obbs/
Shieber 1987 · Janssen 1983 · Kamp 1981a · Kee-
nan 1987b · Keenan/Moss 1985 · Kroch 1974 · La-
dusaw 1979 · Landman/Moerdijk 1983 · Lewis
1970 · Lewis 1975a · Lindström 1966 · Löbner
1986 · May 1977 · May 1985 · May 1989 · Mon-
tague 1973 · Mostowski 1957 · Partee 1973b · Par-
tee 1979 · Partee/Rooth 1983 · Reinhart 1976 ·
Reinhart 1987 · Rooth 1987 · Russell 1905 · Scha
1981 · Seuren 1984 · Tarski 1933 · Tarski 1956 ·
Westerståhl 1984 · Westerståhl 1985 · Westerståhl
1987 · Westerståhl 1989 · Zwarts 1983 · Zwarts
1986
Jan van Eijck, Amsterdam
(The Netherlands)
3. Definitheit in NP-Klassifikationen
3.1 Definita im engeren Sinne
3.2 Starke und schwache NPs
4. Quellenangaben und Literaturempfehlungen
5. Literatur (in Kurzform)
„Artikel und Definitheit“ bezeichnet keinen
natürlich begrenzten Themenkomplex in der
logischen Semantik. Entsprechend zerfällt
dieser Artikel in mehrere nur lose zusammen-
hängende Teile, und viele Überlegungen en-
den in Fragen, für die andere Artikel zustän-
dig sind.