Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Chapter in the History of Formal Semantics in the Twentieth Century: Plurals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Semantics of Plurals, Focus, Degrees, and Times

  • 382 Accesses

Abstract

Plurals had a slow start in the history of formal semantics; a significant explosion of innovations didn’t come until the 1980s. In this paper, I offer a picture of developments by noting not only important achievements but also reflecting on the state of thinking about plurals at various periods—what issues or phenomena were not even noticed, what puzzles had started to get attention, and what innovations made the biggest changes in how people thought about plurals. I divide the epochs roughly into decades: before formal semantics (before about 1970); the first decade of formal semantics—the 1970s, with early work by Montague and Bennett and landmark work on bare plurals by Carlson; the 1980s, when work by Link, Scha, Krifka, Landman, Roberts, and others significantly changed the landscape; and the 1990s, where I mention some key work by Lasersohn and Schwarzschild and stop there, although there was much more work in the 1990s. I don’t discuss the twenty-first century at all because it’s not very historical yet.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As an anecdotal aside, I learned Czech in 1989 with the help of a monolingual Czech-for-foreigners textbook, Čeština pro cizince (Šara et al. 1969), which didn’t introduce plurals until week 14, partly because Czech plural morphology is quite daunting. That forced me into quite awkward paraphrases like “I have a son, and I have another son, and I have another son,” but it was possible to muddle along. Thanks to Rineke Verbrugge (p.c. on Facebook) for finding and filling in the details about that book for me.

  2. 2.

    Their arguments do not centrally concern plurality. The paper is interesting in part as representing an intermediate stage between transformational grammar in the Aspects tradition and generative semantics: the arguments are syntactic, but the authors have the implicit goal of finding common deep structures for sentences that are synonymous, and some of the judgments of ungrammaticality might be argued to concern semantic or pragmatic anomaly. The argument against Gleitman rests on a prior argument that a sentence like John met with Bill is to be derived from John and Bill met. On Gleitman’s analysis, John and Bill met is derived from John and Bill met with each other, which in turn is derived from two sentences. Lakoff and Peters present John and Bill killed Harry (together) as a counterexample to Gleitman, arguing that the putative but ungrammatical intermediate source *John and Bill killed Harry with each other would have to have a with-phrase in deep structure, which they earlier argued to be impossible because of the complex conditions on its occurrence, statable transformationally but not at deep structure. I don’t see any discussion of predicates like are a happy couple, with which it’s much easier to argue against a sentential conjunction source.

  3. 3.

    Sentence (1c) ((283a)) can also be derived from three other sources, ones like (1a) ((284a)) except that one or both NPs is those men rather than that man.

  4. 4.

    Much of the material in this section comes from Partee (2013).

  5. 5.

    References to notes of Montague’s found in Box n, Folder m are to materials in the UCLA Library’s Department of Special Collections, where the Richard Montague papers have been curated and stored.

  6. 6.

    The Oxford English Dictionary cites that volume as containing the first occurrence(s) of the expression ‘Montague grammar’.

  7. 7.

    The higher type for plural nouns, plural common noun phrases, and plural terms had a cascading effect through the grammar, leading to additional higher types for adjectives, verbs, and many other categories. One solution was to make singular nouns be predicates of singleton sets of entities rather than of entities: then all the relevant categories were uniformly of those higher types.

  8. 8.

    Slightly earlier Sharvy (1978, 1980) had made some of the same important breakthroughs for which (Link 1983) long got sole credit; Sharvy’s work was not known to most semanticists until considerably later, so it was Link who had the most influence.

  9. 9.

    I smile at the memory of my earliest discussions with Roger as he was discovering this argument. It was during the 1989 Linguistic Institute at the University of Arizona in Tucson, where we were having several events connected with our NSF grant (Bach, Kratzer, and Partee) on cross-linguistic quantification. I was teaching a seminar on the topic, we had a closed summerlong workshop on the topic and an open weekly institute session on the same topic, as well as a one-day workshop near the end of the institute. We had three or four graduate student assistants there as part of the project, and Roger was one of them. Roger’s great idea about the role of pragmatics in the interpretation of predicates like were separated was born in that fertile environment.

References

  • Bach, E. (1970). Problominalization. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 121–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R. (1972). The proper treatment of number and numbers in a Montague grammar. In R. Rodman (Eds.), Papers in Montague grammar: Occasional papers in linguistics (No. 2, pp. 66–79). Los Angeles: UCLA Linguistics Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R. (1973). The semantics and syntax of number and numbers. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 2, pp. 52–93). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. (1981). Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 369–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M. (1972). Accommodating the plural in Montague’s fragment of English. In R. Rodman (Eds.) Papers in Montague grammar: Occasional papers in linguistics (No. 2, pp. 25–65). Los Angeles: UCLA Linguistics Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M., & Partee, B. H. (1972). Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation; reprinted with an Afterword by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, 1978. Reprinted in Partee, B. H. (2004). Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers by B. H. Partee (Ed.) (pp. 59–109). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M. (1974). Some extensions of a montague fragment of English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. (1987). Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In WCCFL 6. Stanford Linguistics Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. N. (1977a). A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 413–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. N. (1977b). Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Distributed by GLSA, UMass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. N. (1980). Reference to kinds in English. New York: Garland Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1975a). Questions of form and interpretation. In R. Austerlitz (Ed.), The scope of American linguistics (pp. 159–196). Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1975b). Questions of form and interpretation. Linguistic Analysis, 1, 75–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Mey, S. (1981). The dependent plural and the analysis of tense. In NELS 11: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 58–78). Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, M. (1992). Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 353–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1987). A note on collective predicates, distributive predicates, and all. In F. Marshall (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 86) (pp. 97–115). Columbus: Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filip, H. (1992). Aspect and interpretation of nominal arguments. In C. P. Canakis, G. P. Chan & J. M. Denton (Eds.), CLS 28: Papers from the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 139–158). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filip, H. (1993). Aspect, situation types and nominal reference. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filip, H. (1997). Integrating telicity, aspect and NP semantics: The role of thematic structure. In J. Toman (Ed.), Formal approaches to slavic linguistics 3: The College Park meeting 1994 (pp. 61–96). Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan Slavic Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filip, H. (1999). Aspect, eventuality types and nominal reference. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleitman, L. (1960). Conjunction with ‘each other’. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Linguistics Dept., University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleitman, L. (1961a). A grammar for English conjunction. Unpublished paper, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleitman, L. (1961b). Conjunction with “and”. In Transformations and discourse analysis project #40. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleitman, L. (1963). Coordinate conjunction in English. Unpublished paper, Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleitman, L. (1965). Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language, 41(2), 260–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausser, R. (1974). Syntax and semantics of plural. In Proceedings of the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 234–247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, New York, Garland; published 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. (1980). Reciprocal interpretation. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1(3), 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. (1983). The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alternative to situation semantics. Journal of Philosophy, 80, 100–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N. (1986). Maximal collections, specificity and discourse anaphora. In A. M. Farley, P. Farley & K. E. McCullough (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N. (1990). Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 273–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. (1981). Référence temporelle et représentation du discours. Langages, 36–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., & Rohrer, C. (1983). Tense in Texts. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 250–269). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. J. (1977). Propositional structure and illocutionary force. New York: Crowell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1989). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In E. Bach, A. Kratzer & B. Partee (Eds.), Papers on quantification. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125–175). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1986). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Universität München. Ph.D. dissertation; published as Krifka 1989a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1987). Nominal reference and temporal constitution: Towards a semantics of quantity. In J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof & F. Veltman (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (=GRASS Series No. 8) (pp. 153–173). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1989a). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Studien zur Theoretischen Linguistik. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1989b). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (pp. 75–115). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 487–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 29–53). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M., & Gerstner-Link, C. (1993). Genericity. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Handbuch der Syntax (pp. 966–978). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Peters, S. (1966). Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. In Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation, Report No. NSF-17. (pp. VI-1–VI-49): Harvard Computation Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F. (1989). Groups I. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 559–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F. (2000). Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Studies in Linguistics and philosophy (Vol. 76). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. (1988). A semantics for groups and events. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. (1989). On the readings of plural noun phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 130–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. (1990). Group action and spatio-temporal proximity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 179–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. (1992). Generalized conjunction and temporal modification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 381–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction, and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, H. S., & Goodman, N. (1940). The calculus of individuals and its uses. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5, 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesniewski, S. (1938). Grundzüge eines neuen Systems der Grundlagen der Mathematik [Originally Lesniewski 1929]. Collectanea Logica, 12, 61–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and the interpretation of language (pp. 303–323). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1984). Hydras: On the logic of relative clause constructions with multiple heads. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics (pp. 245–257). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1987a). Algebraic semantics of event structures. In J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof & F. Veltman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 243–262). Amsterdam: ITLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1987b). Generalized quantifiers and plurals. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Generalized quantifiers. Linguistic and logical approaches (pp. 151–180). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1991a). Quantity and number. In D. Zaefferer (Ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics (pp. 133–149). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1991b). Plural. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 418–440). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1997). Ten years of research on plurals—Where do we stand? In F. Hamm & E. W. Hinrichs (Eds.), Plurality and quantification (pp. 19–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. (1998). Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. CSLI lecture notes No. 74. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. (1989). Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 387–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. (1968). The role of semantics in a grammar. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 124–169). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. D. (Ed.). (1976). Notes from the linguistic underground. Syntax and semantics 7. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. (1969). On the nature of certain philosophical entities. The Monist, 53, 159–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, A., & Smiley, T. (2013). Plural logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1985). Underlying events in the logical analysis of English. In E. LePore & B. McLaughlin (Eds.), Actions and events: Perspectives of the philosophy of Donald Davidson (pp. 235–267). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1989). The progressive in English: Events, states and processes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 213–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (1975). Comments on C. J. Fillmore’s and N. Chomsky’s papers. In R. Austerlitz (Ed.), The scope of American linguistics (pp. 197–209). Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 243–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (1991). Adverbial quantification and event structures. In L. Sutton, C. Johnson & R. Shields (Eds.), BLS 17: Proceedings of the seventeenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 439–456). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (1978). Bound variables and other anaphors. In D. L. Waltz (Ed.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing 2 (TINLAP-2) (pp. 79–85). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (2013). Montague’s “linguistic” work: Motivations, trajectory, attitudes. In E. Chemla, V. H. Homer & G. Winterstein (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, September 8–10 2012 (pp. 427–453). Paris: ENS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, F. J. (1975). A bibliography of recent work on mass terms. Synthèse, 31(3/4), 523–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postal, P. (1976). Linguistic anarchy notes. In J. McCawley (Ed.), Notes from the linguistic underground (pp. 201–225). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst; Revised as Roberts (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (1990). Modal subordination, anaphora and distributivity. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodman, R. (1972). Papers in Montague grammar. Occasional papers in linguistics (No .2). Los Angeles: Dept of Linguistics, UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šara, M., Šarová, J., & Bytel, A. (1969). Čeština pro cizince/Czech for English-speaking students. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladelství.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scha, R. (1981). Distributive, collective, and cumulative quantification. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. B. J. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 483–512). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scha, R. J. H. (1984). Distributive, collective, and cumulative quantification. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. B. J. Stokhof (Eds.), Truth, interpretation and information (pp. 131–158). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R. (1991). On the meaning of definite plural noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvy, R. (1978). Maybe english has no count nouns. Notes on Chinese semantics, an essay in metaphysics and linguistics. Studies in Language, 2, 345–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvy, R. (1980). A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 89, 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. S. (1965). Ambiguous sentences with ‘and’. In D. A. Reibel & S. A. Schane (Eds.), Modern studies in English (pp. 75–79). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. (1981). Quantification in Thai. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts; available from GLSA, UMass, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P., & Partee, B. H. (1973). The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, G. T. (1981). The formal semantics and pragmatics of free adjuncts and absolutes in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, G. T. (1985). The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taub, A. (1989). Collective predicates, Aktionsarten and ‘All’. In E. Bach, A. Kratzer & B. Partee (Eds.) Papers on quantification (no page numbers). Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, B. (1979). A formal approach to discourse anaphora. New York: Garland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, K. J. (1991). Studies in the semantics of generic noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation Distributed by GLSA, UMass, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y., & Scha, R. (2015). Plurals. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 2nd ed. (pp. 77–113). Malden, MA, Oxford, and Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky, A. M., & Sadock, J. M. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. IV, pp. 1–36). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Linguistics and Philosophy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA

    Barbara H. Partee

Authors
  1. Barbara H. Partee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara H. Partee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA, USA

    Daniel Altshuler

  2. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Jessica Rett

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Partee, B.H. (2019). A Chapter in the History of Formal Semantics in the Twentieth Century: Plurals. In: Altshuler, D., Rett, J. (eds) The Semantics of Plurals, Focus, Degrees, and Times. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04438-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04438-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04437-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04438-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation