1Two kinds of long-distance indefinites*Bernhard Schwarz, July 2001Indefinite noun phrases are known to have the option of taking scope from insidesyntactic islands. Recent analyses have sought to account for such long-distanceindefinites by construing indefinite articles as variables ranging over choice functions.This variable is either taken to remain free (Kratzer 1998) or existentially quantified(Reinhart 1997). Building on observations in Chierchia (2001), this paper argues thatunrestricted existential quantification over choice functions leads to overgeneration, andtherefore does not improve on accounts relying on long-distance scope shifts. However,it will be argued that there are two kinds of long-distance indefinites, only one of whichshould be analyzed in terms of scope shifting. The other kind lends itself to a choicefunction analysis without existential closure.1. IntroductionSuppose Smith and Baker are teachers who each recommended a number ofbooks, and that Mary read every book Smith recommended, but not every book Bakerdid. For most speakers, sentence (1a) below is false in this scenario.(1) a. Mary read every book at least one teacher had recommended.b. [at least one teacher] λ1[Mary read every book t1 had recommended]This judgment indicates that (1b), where at least one teacher has covertly extracted toa topmost position, is not available as a logical form for the surface form (1a). For inthe scenario given, we do find at least one teacher, in fact exactly one, such that Maryread every book he recommended. It is to be concluded that the syntactic scope of at *This paper owes an obvious debt to Gennaro Chierchia's recent work on long-distance indefinites. Forconversations and comments I thank Agnes Bende-Farcas, Fabian Heck, Peter Krause, Wolfgang2least one teacher at logical form is restricted to the relative clause modifying book.That scope should be so restricted does of course not come as a surprise. Afterall, relative clauses are commonly thought to be islands for all varieties of syntacticmovement, including covert scope shifts targeting quantificational noun phrases likeevery teacher, no teacher, most teachers, or at least one teacher. Accordingly, theoriesof syntax typically ensure that structures like (1b) violate conditions on locality.This is why examples like (2a) below are interesting. In generalized quantifiertheory, at least one teacher and the indefinite some teacher both characterize the set ofthose properties that at least on teacher has. It might therefore be expected that (1a)and (2a) are synonymous. But they are not.(2) a. Mary read every book some teacher had recommended.b. [some teacher] λ1[Mary read every book t1 had recommended]Sentence (2a) seems to have a reading in common with (1a), a reading that is false inthe scenario given above. However, speakers agree that (2a) may also be used as anappropriate and truthful description of this scenario. Thus, (2a) seems to allow for areading expressed by the logical form in (2b), even though the covert scope shift itposits is as long-distance as the one in (1b) above.What makes indefinites differ in this way from quantificational noun phrases?As its title suggests, this paper will argue that the correct answer must distinguish two Sternefeld, and, especially, Hans Kamp.3different cases. It will be argued that a long-distance indefinite like some teacher is tobe analyzed differently from a long-distance indefinite like a certain woman he knows.The argument will be prepared by a close examination of some previous analyses oflong-distance indefinites, which are therefore summarized in the remainder of thisintroduction.One conceivable analysis is, obviously, that indefinites are not subject tosyntactic locality conditions, and hence that non-local semantic scope is due to long-distance scope shifts.1 In this view, aptly called the scope shifting analysis, (2b) isconsidered well-formed after all and held responsible for the relevant reading of (2a).An alternative to the scope shifting analysis is formulated in Fodor and Sag(1982). This account, the referential analysis of long-distance indefinites, maintainsthat indefinites are subject to the usual locality conditions, but considers themambiguous between a quantificational and a referential interpretation. In thequantificational interpretation, some teacher denotes the same generalized quantifier asat least one teacher. This interpretation accounts for the local scope reading of (2a),the one it shares with (1a). In the referential interpretation, some teacher is interpretedmuch like the complex demonstrative this teacher. The indefinite is assumed to referdirectly to a specific teacher, some teacher the speaker has in mind. This 1Some authors have proposed to replace actual long-distance scope shifts with equivalent operationsthat do not technically violate islands constraints. Abusch (1994) formulates a storage mechanismwhich lets indefinites escape islands. Cresti (1995) suggests that indefinites give the appearance ofshifting long-distance by virtue of being topic marked. Both proposals can be considered versionsof the scope shifting analysis for the purposes of this paper.4interpretation is considered the source of the long-distance reading of (2a). It accountsfor non-local scope without positing long-distance scope shifts. Irrespective of itsactual syntactic scope, a directly referential expressions like this teacher is interpretedas if it appeared in topmost position. In the referential analysis this feature carriesover to long-distance indefinites.Accordingly, the referential analysis predicts that long-distance indefinites arenever perceived as being in the scope of another quantifier. Even though Fodor and Sagbelieved this prediction to be borne out, there is by now agreement that it is not. Forconcreteness, let us extend the above scenario by assuming that Mary and Sue are thestudents, and that Sue read every paper Baker recommended, but not every paperSmith did. Many speakers would consider (3a) below, where the quantifier everystudent replaces Mary in (2a), a felicitous and true description of this extendedscenario.(3) a. Every student read every book that some teacher had recommended.b. [every student] λ1[[some teacher] λ2[t1 read every book t2 hadrecommended]]The referential analysis cannot account for these judgments, because in the readingunder discussion the teachers vary with the students, indicating that some teacher isnot