Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages (Oxford ... - Cryptm.org

DIRECT OBJECT CLITIC DOUBLING 145(42) She may find it in 'The House of F rase r.'Only the (41c) reading is nonspecific and (42) is not an appropriate continuationfor it. One could continue the (4Ic) reading as in (43):(43) She may find one in 'The House of Fraser.'Importantly, the bare singulars fiistan in (39a) andforema in (39b) cannot referto some particular dress or to some particular kind of dress. So the bare singularsin (39a) and (39b) lack the readings given under (4la) and (41b) that obtain forthe a-expressions in (39a') and (39b'). This means that the bare singulars in(39a) and (39b) may not receive specific interpretations. Thus, a-expressionsand bare singulars are not fully synonymous; they are so only on the nonspecificreadings of the former.As loup (1977) points out, certain inferences follow on a specific readingthat are invalid on a nonspecific reading. On the specific readings (41 a) and(41b), the existence of the items referred to by the a-expressions is presupposed.On (41 a) and (41 b) the sentence in (44) will be true.(44) There in a certain dress that Ann wants to buy.No existence claims follow from the nonspecific reading in (41c); that is, (44) isnot a valid inference from (41c). Instead, we can paraphrase (41c) as in (45):(45) Ann wants there to be some dress or other that she can (find and) buy.Thus, what Ann is interested in (in (39a) and (39b) is some individual or otherthat embodies a certain property, namely that of being [+dress] and not, say,[+bookj. The identity of the item that Ann wants, beyond its being [+dress], isirrelevant here. Assuming that properties do not exist outside individuals (thatis, that properties are not ontological primitives), Ann is interested in someindividual or other that has the property [+dress]. But, each individual that hasthe property [+dress] has in addition at least one other property that makes itdistinct from other individuals that have the same property [+dress]. The veryexistence of distinct individuals possessing the same basic property (here:[+dress]), which makes them be regarded as members of the same class (here:the class of dresses), is due to the existence of at least one distinct property.Being a distinct individual itself is a property. These other properties of individuals,beyond the property [+dress], are not only irrelevant to Ann in (39a) and(39b), but indeed cannot be expressed by the bare singulars here. The baresingulars in (37a) and (37b) do not denote individuals but properties, which iswhy (39a) and (39b) get an event-related reading, which may be paraphrased asin (46):(46) Ann wants to engage/is interested in dress buying.It is, then, my contention that while direct object a-expressions may denoteindividuals, direct object bare singulars may not; the latter invariably denote