Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 223–280 | Cite as

Exception sentences and polyadic quantification

  • Friederike Moltmann


In this paper, I have proposed a compositional semantic analysis of exception NPs from which three core properties of exception constructions could be derived. I have shown that this analysis overcomes various empirical and conceptual shortcomings of prior proposals of the semantics of exception sentences. The analysis was first formulated for simple exception NPs, where the EP-complement was considered a set-denoting term and the EP-associate was a monadic quantifier. It was then generalized in two steps: first, in order to account for quantified EP-complements, and second, in order to account for polyadic quantifiers as the EP-associates. An additional assumption that was made in several places was that EPs may operate at the level of implications. The consequences of this assumption, though, still have to be investigated.


Artificial Intelligence Semantic Analysis Additional Assumption Computational Linguistic Core Property 
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. Anderson, S.: 1972, ‘How to Get “Even”’,Language 48.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4.Google Scholar
  3. Beghelli, F.: 1992, ‘Minimalist Approach to Quantifier Scope’,Proceedings of NELS 23. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. van Benthem, J.: 1989, ‘Polyadic Quantification’,Linguistics and Philosophy 10.Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, G.: 1981, ‘Amount Relatives’,Language 53.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’,Linguistics and Philosophy 15.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G.: 1993, ‘Questions with Quantifiers’,Natural Language Semantics 1(2).Google Scholar
  8. Clark, R. and E. Keenan: 1985/6, ‘The Absorption Operator’,The Linguistic Review 5.Google Scholar
  9. von Fintel, K.: 1993, ‘Exceptive Constructions’,Natural Language Semantics 1.Google Scholar
  10. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1984,Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answer, Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14.Google Scholar
  12. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1992, ‘A Note on Interrogatives and Adverbs of Quantification’, in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.),Proceedings of SALT II, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  13. Fiengo, R. and H. Lasnik: 1973, ‘The Logical Structure of Reciprocal Sentences in English’,Foundations of Language 8.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, I.: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, I.: 1990, ‘E-type Pronouns and “Donkey”-Anaphora’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13.Google Scholar
  16. Higginbotham, J. and R. May: 1981, ‘Questions, Quantifiers and Crossing’,The Linguistic Review 1.Google Scholar
  17. Higginbotham, J.: 1992, ‘Either/Or’, in T. Sherer (ed.),Preceedings of NELS 21. Graduate Student Linguistic Association, University of Massachusetts, Department of Linguistics, Amherst.Google Scholar
  18. Hoeksema, J.: 1987, ‘The Logic of Exception’, in A. Miller (ed.),Proceedings of ESCOL 4. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  19. Hoeksema, J.: 1989, ‘Exploring Exception Phrases’, in L. Torenvliet and M. Stokhof (eds.),Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Hoeksema, J.: 1991, ‘The Semantics of Exception Phrases’, in J. van der Does and J. van Eijck (eds.),Generalized Quantifier Theory and Applications, Dutch Network for Language, Logic and Information, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Kadmon, N. and F. Landman: 1993, ‘Any’,Linguistics and Philosophy 16.Google Scholar
  22. Karttunen, L.: 1977, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Questions’,Linguistics and Philosophy 1.Google Scholar
  23. Keenan, E.: 1987a, ‘Unreducible n-ary Quantifiers’, in P. Gaerdenfors (ed.),Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  24. Keenan, E.: 1987b, ‘On the Semantic Definition of Indefinite NP’, in A. ter Meulen and E. Reuland (eds.),The (In)Definiteness Effect, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
  25. Keenan, E.: 1992, ‘Beyond the Frege Boundary’,Linguistics and Philosophy 15.Google Scholar
  26. Keenan, E. and Faltz: 1985,Boolean Semantics, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. Keenan, E. and Y. Stavi: 1986, ‘A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners’,Linguistics and Philosophy 9.Google Scholar
  28. Krifka, M.: 1992, ‘Definite NPs Aren't Quantifiers’,Linguistic Inquiry 23.Google Scholar
  29. Ladusaw, W.: 1988, ‘Adverbs, Negation and QR’,Linguistics in the Morning Calm 2, The Linguistics Society of Korea, Hanshin Publ. Co.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. L. Keenan (ed.),Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach’, in R. Baeuerle et al. (eds.),Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  32. May, R.: 1985,Logical Form, Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  33. May, R.: 1989, ‘Interpreting Logical Form’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12.Google Scholar
  34. Moltmann, F.: 1992a,Coordination and Comparatives, Ph.D Thesis MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  35. Moltmann, F.: 1992b,Individuation und Lokalität, Studien zur Ereignis-und Nominalphrasensemantik, Fink Verlag, Munich.Google Scholar
  36. Moltmann, F.: (to appear a), ‘Resumptive Quantifiers in Exception Sentences’, Makoto Kanazawa et al. (eds.),Quantifiers, Deduction, and Context, CSLI Lecture Notes, Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Moltmann, F.: (to appear b),Parts and Wholes in Semantics, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nam, S.: 1991, ‘N-ary Quantifiers and the Expressive Power of NP-Composition’, in J. van der Does and J. van Eijck (eds.),Generalized Quantifier Theory and Applications, Dutch Network for Language, Logic and Information, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  39. Reinhart, T.: 1991, ‘Elliptical Conjunction — Non-quantificational OR’, in A. Kasher (ed.),The Chomskian Turn, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  40. Rooth, M.: 1985,Association with Focus, Ph.D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  41. Srivastav, V.: 1991,Wh-Dependencies in Hindi and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Veltman, F.: 1984, ‘Data Semantics’, in J. Groenendijk et al. (eds.),Truth, Interpretation and Information, Foris, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. Veltman, F.: 1986,Logics for Conditionals, Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. Westerstahl, D.: 1989, ‘Quantifiers in Formal and Natural Language’, in D. Gabbay and H. Guenthner (eds.),Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friederike Moltmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCUNY, Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations