Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 235–276 | Cite as

Measurement in the nominal and verbal domains

Research Article

Abstract

This paper examines some aspects of the grammar of measurement based on data from non-split and split measure phrase (MP) constructions in Japanese. I claim that the non-split MP construction involves measurement of individuals, while the split MP construction involves measurement of events as well as of individuals. This claim is based on the observation that, while both constructions are subject to some semantic restrictions in the nominal domain, only the split MP construction is sensitive to restrictions in the verbal domain (namely, incompatibility with single-occurrence events and with individual-level predicates, and (un)availability of collective readings). It is shown that these semantic restrictions can be explained by a uniform semantic constraint on the measure function, namely, Schwarzschild’s [(2002). The grammar of measurement. The Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory, 24, 241–306] monotonicity constraint. In particular, I argue that, in the two constructions at issue, the measure function is subject to the monotonicity constraint, and that we observe different semantic restrictions depending on whether the measure function applies to a nominal or a verbal domain.

Keywords

Measure phrases Numerals Split quantifiers Events Lattices Distributivity Plurality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney S. (1987). The english noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Bach E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5-16Google Scholar
  3. Beaver D., Crady B. (2003). Always and only: Why not all focus-sensitive operators are alike. Natural Language Semantics 11, 323-362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett M., Partee B. (1972). Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Santa Monica, System Development CorporationGoogle Scholar
  5. Borer H. (2005). Structuring sense, volume 1: In name only. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunt C.H. (1985). Mass terms and model theoretic semantics. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson G. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson G. (1984). On the role of thematic roles in linguistic theory. Linguistics 22, 259-279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cartwright H. (1975). Amount and measures of amounts. Noûs 9, 143-164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chierchia G. (1995). Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In: Carlson G., Pelletier F.J. (eds) The generic book. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 176-223Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339-405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher N. (eds) The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 81-95Google Scholar
  13. Diesing M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Doetjes J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Hague, Holland Institute of Generative LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
  15. Downing P. (1996). Numeral classifier systems: The case of Japanese. Amsterdam, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  16. Dowty D. (1987). Collective predicates, distributive predicates, and all. The Proceedings of Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) ’86, 97-115Google Scholar
  17. Dowty D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(2): 547-619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fujita N. (1994). On the nature of modification: A study of floating quantifiers and related constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  19. Fukushima K. (1991). Generalized floating quantifiers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  20. Harada S. (1976). Quantifier float as a relational rule. Metropolitan Linguistics 1, 44-49Google Scholar
  21. Herburger E. (2000). What counts: Focus and quantification. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Inoue K. (1978). Nihongo-no Bunpoo Kisoku [Grammar Rules in Japanese]. Tokyo, TaisyukanGoogle Scholar
  23. Ishii Y. (1999). A note on floating quantifiers in Japanese. In: Muraki M., Iwamoto E. (eds), Linguistics: In search of the human mind, A Festschrift for Kazuko Inoue. Tokyo, Kaitakusha, pp. 236-267Google Scholar
  24. Jackendoff R. (1977). X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackendoff R. (1996). The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 14, 305-354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitagawa Y., Kuroda S.-Y. (1992). Passive in Japanese. Manuscript. University of Rochester and University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  27. Kobuchi-Philip M. (2003). Distributivity and the Japanese Floating Numeral Quantifier. Ph.D. dissertation, The City University of New York.Google Scholar
  28. Koizumi M. (1994). Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 25-79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kratzer A. (1995). Stage-level predicates and individual-level predicates. In: Carlson G., Pelletier F.J. (eds), The generic book. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 125-175Google Scholar
  30. Kratzer A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In: Rooryck J., Zaring L. (eds), Phrase structure and the lexicon. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 109-137Google Scholar
  31. Kratzer A. (forthcoming). The event argument Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Krifka M. (1986). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Munich.Google Scholar
  33. Krifka M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In: Bartsch R., van Benthem J., van Emde Boas P. (eds), Semantics and contextual expression. Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 75-115Google Scholar
  34. Krifka M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 487-520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krifka M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In: Sag I.A., Szabolcsi A. (eds), Lexical matters. Stanford CA, CSLI, pp. 29-53Google Scholar
  36. Krifka M. (1998). The origin of telicity. In: Rothstein S. (eds), Events and grammar. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 197-235Google Scholar
  37. Kuno S. (1978). Theoretical perspectives on Japanese linguistics. In: Hinds J, Howard I. (eds) Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo, KaitakushaGoogle Scholar
  38. Landman F. (1989a). Groups I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559-605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Landman F. (1989b). Groups II. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 723-744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landman F. (1996). Plurality. In: Lappin S. (eds) Handbook of contemporary semantics. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 425- 457Google Scholar
  41. Landman F. (2000). Events and plurality. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  42. Lasersohn P. (1988). A semantics for groups and events. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  43. Lasersohn P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  44. Link G. (1983). The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: A lattice theoretic approach. In: Bauerle R., Schwarze C., von Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin, de Gruyer, pp. 302-323Google Scholar
  45. Marantz A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  46. ter Meulen A. (1984). Events, quantities and individuals. In: Landman F., Veltman F. (eds), Varieties of formal semantics. Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 259-280Google Scholar
  47. Mihara K. (1998). Suuryoosi renketu koobun-to ’kekka’-no gan’i [Quantifier linking construction and the implication of ’resultative’]. Gengo [Language], 6, 86-95, 7, 94-102, 8, 104-113Google Scholar
  48. Miyagawa S. (1989). Structure and case marking in Japanese. New York, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  49. Nakanishi K. (2004a). Domains of measurement: Formal properties of non-split/split quantifier constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  50. Nakanishi K. (2004b). On comparative quantification in the verbal domain. The Proceedings of the 14th Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT 14). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Nakanishi K. (2007). Formal properties of measurement constructions. Berlin, Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  52. Nakanishi K. (in press). The syntax and semantics of floating numeral quantifiers. In S. Miyagawa & M. Saito (Eds.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nakanishi K. & Romero M. (2004). Two constructions with most and their semantic properties. The Proceedings of the 34th Conference of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 34) (pp. 453-467).Google Scholar
  54. Nishigauchi T., & Uchibori A. (1991). Japanese bare NPs and syntax-semantics correspondences in quantification. Manuscript. Osaka University and University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  55. Ogihara T. (1998). The ambiguity of the -te iru form in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 87-120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ohki M. (1987). Nihongo-no yuuru suuryoosi-no danwa kinoo-ni tuite [On discourse functions of floating quantifiers in Japanese]. Sityookaku Gaikokugokyooiku Kenkyuu 10, 37-68Google Scholar
  57. Okutsu K. (1969). Suuryooteki-hyoogen-no bumpoo [the grammar of quantificational expressions]. Nihongo Kyooiku [Japanese Language Education] 14, 42-60Google Scholar
  58. Parsons T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  59. Partee B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In: Groenendijk J., de Jongh D., Stokhof M. (eds) Studies in discourse representation theory and the Theory of generalized quantifiers. Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 115-143Google Scholar
  60. Partee B., ter Meulen A., Wall R. (1990). Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  61. Quine W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  62. Rothstein S. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  63. Saito M., Murasugi K. (1999). Subject predication within IP and NP. In: Johnson K., Roberts I. (eds) Beyond principles and parameters. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 167-188Google Scholar
  64. Schwarzschild R. (1991). On the meaning of definite plural noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  65. Schwarzschild R. (1996). Pluralities. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  66. Schwarzschild R. (2002). The grammar of measurement. The Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory XII, 225-245Google Scholar
  67. Schwarzschild R., Wilkinson K. (2002). Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10(1): 1-41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shibatani M. (1977). Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53, 789-809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sternefeld W. (1998). Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics 6, 303-337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tenny C. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  71. Tenny C. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  72. Terada M. (1990). Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  73. Verkuyl H. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  74. Verkuyl H. (1993). A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  75. Watanabe A. (2006). Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 24, 241-306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams E. (1981). Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1, 81-114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zucchi S., White M. (2002). Twigs, sequences and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(2): 223-270CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations