Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Same but different

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that same is fundamentally different from different, in that same imposes a discourse condition on eventualities, while different compares individuals. This difference has not been noted in previous literature. Furthermore, in the literature on same, there has been a persistent puzzle about the contribution of the definite article with which same must co-occur. We show that this puzzle is resolved once the contribution of same is adjusted to apply to eventualities: then the definite article can be interpreted in the usual way, as generating a presupposition about individuals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Asher N., Hardt D., Busquets J. (2001) Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18(1): 1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bach, E. W. (1981). Time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.

  • Barker C. (2007) Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(4): 407–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasoveanu A. (2011) Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(2): 93–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bumford D., Barker C. (2013) Association with distributivity and the problem of multiple antecedents for singular different. Linguistics and Philosophy 36(5): 355–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson G. (1987) Same and different: Consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10(4): 531–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1985). A unified indexical analysis of same and different: A response to Stump and Carlson. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University.

  • Hardt, D., Asher, N., & Hunter, J. (2013). VP ellipsis without indices. Proceedings of 23rd semantics and linguistic theory (pp. 239–256). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California.

  • Hardt, D., Mikkelsen, L., & Ørsnes, B. (2012). Sameness, ellipsis and anaphora. In M. Aloni & F. Veltman (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 341–350). Amsterdam: Foris.

  • Hawthorne, J., & Manley, D. (2012). The reference book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.

  • Hobbs J. R. (1979) Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3(1): 67–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. R., & Kehler, A. (1997). A theory of parallelism and the case of VP ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 394–401.

  • Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrect: Kluwer.

  • Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Kehler, A. (2004). Discourse coherence. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 241–265). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Landman, F., & Partee, B. H. (1987). Weak NP’s in HAVE sentences. Unpublished abstract, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

  • Merchant, J. (2008). Variable island repair under ellipsis. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp. 132–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Nowak, E. (2014). Demonstratives, hidden arguments, and presupposition. Unpublished manuscript, UC, Berkeley.

  • Partee, B. H. (1999). Weak NP’s in HAVE sentences. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, & Y. Venema (Eds.), JFAK, a Liber Amicorum for Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

  • Prüst, H., Scha, R., & van den Berg, M. (1994). A discourse perspective on Verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(3), 261–327.

  • Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of IT Management, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Daniel Hardt

  2. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, USA

    Line Mikkelsen

Authors
  1. Daniel Hardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Line Mikkelsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Hardt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hardt, D., Mikkelsen, L. Same but different. Linguist and Philos 38, 289–314 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9176-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9176-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation