Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 237–259 | Cite as

Presuppositions for proportional quantifiers

  • Chris Barker


Most studies of the so-called proportion problem seek to understand how lexical and structural properties of sentences containing adverbial quantifiers give rise to various proportional readings. This paper explores a related but distinct problem: given a use of a particular sentence in context, why do only some of the expected proportional readings seem to be available? That is, why do some sentences allow an asymmetric reading when other, structurally similar sentences seem to require a symmetric reading? Potential factors suggested in the literature include the distribution of donkey pronouns, certain uniqueness implications, and focus structures. I argue here that the use of an adverbial quantifier presupposes HOMOGENEITY: all individual situations that get lumped into a single case for the purposes of evaluating the quantification must agree on whether they satisfy the nuclear scope. For instance, in order for a token of Usually, if a farmer owns a donkey, he beats it to be felicitous when construed under a farmer-dominant asymmetric reading, the context must be consistent with the proposition that each farmer either beats all or none of his donkeys. Thus proportional sentences are indeed systematically ambiguous, but only some readings will be felicitous in a given context.


Structural Property Single Case Potential Factor Individual Situation Distinct Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barker, Chris: 1995, Possessive Descriptions, CSLI Publications, Stanford, Cal.Google Scholar
  2. Bäuerle, Rainer and U. Egli: 1985, ‘Anapher, Nominalphrase und Eselssätze’, Papier 105 des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15(2), 111–183.Google Scholar
  4. Gawron, Jean Mark, JohnNerbonne and StanleyPeters: 1991, ‘The Absorption Principle and E-Type Anaphora’, in J. Barwise et al. (eds.), Situation Theory and Its Applications, vol. 2, CSLI Publications, Stanford, Cal.Google Scholar
  5. Heim, Irene: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Heim, Irene: 1990, ‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177.Google Scholar
  7. Jacobs, Joachim: 1991, ‘Focus Ambiguities’, Journal of Semantics 8, 1–36.Google Scholar
  8. Kadmon, Nirit: 1987, On Unique and Non-unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Kadmon, Nirit: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.Google Scholar
  10. Kanazawa, Makoto: 1994, ‘Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting’, Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 109–158.Google Scholar
  11. Kang, YoungEun Yoon: 1994, Weak and Strong Interpretations of Quantifiers and Definite NPs in English and Korean, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  12. Kratzer, Angelika: 1989, ‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653.Google Scholar
  13. Kratzer, Angelika: 1995, ‘Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates’, in G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 125–175.Google Scholar
  14. Krifka, Manfred: 1992, ‘A Framework for Focus-Sensitive Quantification’, in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, OSUWPL vol. 40, Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, pp. 215–236.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, David: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  16. Partee, Barbara: 1984, ‘Nominal and Temporal Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 243–286.Google Scholar
  17. Roberts, Craige: 1995, ‘Domain Restriction in Dynamic Semantics’, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy vol. 54, Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp. 661–700.Google Scholar
  18. Root, Rebecca: 1985, The Semantics of Anaphora in Discourse, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  19. Rooth, Mats: 1987, ‘NP Interpretation in Montague Grammer, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 237–268.Google Scholar
  20. Schubert, Lenhart K. and Francis Jeffry Pelletier: 1989, ‘Generically Speaking’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, vol. 2: Semantic Issues, pp. 193–268.Google Scholar
  21. de Swart, Henriëtte: 1991, Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized Quantifier Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Barker
    • 1
  1. 1.0108 Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations