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

146 DALINA KALLULLIproperties. The distinction between properties and individuals may berepresented as in (47):(47) P versus P n p;(where P is the fundamental property that identifies individuals as membersof the same class and p; is a property that does not contradict P)It is by now a well-established view in the semantic literature that specificreadings are presuppositional and nonspecific readings are not (cf., Enc. 1991,Diesing 1992). The hypothesis that bare singulars are property-denotingexpressions, that is, predicates, can account for the fact that they are not presuppositionalby assuming that presupposition is about saturated structures, that is,about individuals (and propositions), not about properties. It follows, then, thatspecificity involves individuation; individual-denoting expressions are alwaysspecific irrespective of the fact that they may be used referentially or attributively.On the other hand, property-denoting expressions are nonspecific. Sincearguments are saturated structures, noun phrase arguments denote individuals,that is, are specific.In sum, on their specific reading noun phrases always denote individuals,not properties. Individuals translate as arguments (they are saturated structures),never as predicates at LF. Therefore, noun phrase arguments are always specific(irrespective of the fact that as such they may be used referentially or attributively).On their nonspecific reading, noun phrases invariably denote properties,not individuals. Properties translate as predicates at LF; they are unsaturatedstructures. Bare singulars are nonspecific (read: property denoting); they are LFpredicates.Given that direct objects may be instantiated by bare singulars, whichinvariably denote properties, it follows that direct objects are not always arguments;they may also be predicates. I claim that when direct objects denoteproperties, not individuals (i.e., when they are predicates, not arguments),doubling and scrambling cannot apply to them.Consider the examples under (48) and (49). >J In (48), the bare singularpiano is a predicate, not an argument. Therefore it cannot scramble past the highadverb probably. In (49) piano occurs to the left of the adverb. Yet, the meaningof (49) suggests that piano is a predicate here as well, as indicated by its Englishtranslation. Observe, however, that here the predicate (namely play or take) thatselects piano as its internal argument is deleted at PF; that is, no adverbialintervenes between the bare singular piano and the predicate whose internalargument it is. Note also that piano playing or taking piano lessons is agerundive argument of the clausal predicate find. As such, it may scramble.(48) dat Jan (*piano) waarschijnlijk K (piano) speeltthat Jan piano probably piano plays(49) dat Jan (piano) waarschijnlijk K (piano) leukerthat Jan piano probably piano nicerDutch