Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 93–168 | Cite as

Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora

  • Adrian BrasoveanuEmail author
Research Article
First Online:

Abstract

The paper proposes the first unified account of deictic/sentence-external and sentence-internal readings of singular different. The empirical motivation for such an account is provided by a cross-linguistic survey and an analysis of the differences in distribution and interpretation between singular different, plural different and same (singular or plural) in English. The main proposal is that distributive quantification temporarily makes available two discourse referents within its nuclear scope, the values of which are required by sentence-internal uses of singular different to be distinct, much as its deictic uses require the values of two discourse referents to be distinct. Thus, we take sentence-internal readings to be a form of ‘association with distributivity’ that is similar to association with focus. The contrast between singular different, plural different and same is explained in terms of several kinds of quantificational distributors that license their internal readings. The analysis is executed in a stack-based dynamic system couched in type logic, so we get compositionality in the usual Montagovian way. Quantificational subordination and dependent indefinites in various languages provide additional motivation for the account. Investigating the connections between items with sentence-internal readings and the quantificational licensors of these readings opens up a larger project of formally investigating (i) the typology of quantificational distributors and distributivity-dependent items and (ii) the fine-grained contexts of evaluation needed to capture this typological variation.

Keywords

Sentence-internal readings Distributivity Different Same Dynamic plural logic 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alrenga, P. (2007). Dimensions in the semantics of comparatives. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  2. Barker C. (2007) Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 407–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck S. (1997) On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 229–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck S. (2000) The semantics of different: Comparison operator and relational adjective. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 101–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 71–107). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Bittner, M. (2007). Online update: Temporal, modal and de se anaphora in polysynthetic discourse. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 363–404). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brasoveanu A. (2008) Donkey pluralities: Plural information states vs. non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 129–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brasoveanu, A. (2008b). Deictic and sentence-internal readings of same/different as anaphora: A unified compositional account. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2008 workshop ‘What syntax feeds semantics?’Google Scholar
  9. Brasoveanu, A. (2008c). Sentence-internal readings of same/different as quantifier-internal anaphora. In Proceedings of the 27th west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 72–80).Google Scholar
  10. Brasoveanu, A. (2008d). Comparative correlatives as anaphora to differentials. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 18 (pp. 126–143). Cornell University.Google Scholar
  11. Brasoveanu A. (2010) Decomposing modal quantification. Journal of Semantics 27: 437–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brisson C. (2003) Plurals, all and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 129–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlson G. (1987) Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 531–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (2000) Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics (2nd ed.). MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Dekker, P. (1994). Predicate logic with anaphora. In L. Santelmann & M. Harvey (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT IV (pp. 79–95), DMLL, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  16. Dotlačil, J. (2010). Anaphora and distributivity. A study of same, different, reciprocals and others. PhD dissertation, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.Google Scholar
  17. Dowty, D. (1985). A unified indexical analysis of same and different: A response to Stump and Carlson. Ms, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  18. Farkas, D. F. (1981). Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In R. Hendrik, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of CLS 7 (pp. 59–66), CLC, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  19. Farkas, D. F. (1997). Dependent indefinites. In F. Corblin, D. Godard, & J.-M. Marandin (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (pp. 243–267). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  20. Farkas D.F. (2002) Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farkas, D. F. (2007). Free choice in Romanian. In Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricen studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 71–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Gallin D. (1975) Intensional and higher-order modal logic with applications to Montague semantics. North-Holland mathematics studies. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  25. Heim I. (1985) Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms, UT AustinGoogle Scholar
  26. Heim I., Lasnik H., May R. (1991) Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 63–101Google Scholar
  27. Johnson K. (1996) Topics in syntax. University of Massachusetts, Lecture notesGoogle Scholar
  28. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Part 1 (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
  29. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. Kanazawa M. (2001) Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 383–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 7, pp. 363–385). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Keenan E. (1992) Beyond the Frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 199–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krifka M. (1996) Parametric sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 555–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laca, B., & Tasmowski, L. (2003). From non-identity to plurality: French différent as an adjective and as a determiner. In J. Quer, J. Schroten, M. Scorretti, P. Sleeman, & E. Verheugd (Eds.), Romance languages & linguistic theory 2001 (pp. 155–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Larson R. (1990) Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632Google Scholar
  36. Matushansky, O. (2007). The same as? Handout for the Colloque International sur les Adjectifs, Université Lille 3, September 13–15. http://mapage.noos.fr/matushansky/Downloads/Lille.pdf.
  37. McCawley, J. (1988). The comparative conditional construction in English, German and Chinese. In Proceedings of BLS (Vol. 14, pp. 176–187).Google Scholar
  38. Moltmann F. (1992) Reciprocals and same/different: Towards a semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 411–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muskens, R. (1995). Tense and the logic of change. In U. Egli, P. E. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow & G. Wienold (Eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language (pp. 147–183). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Nouwen R. (2007) On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36: 123–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwarzschild R. (1996) Pluralities. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, E. A. (2010). Correlational comparison in English. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  45. Solomon, M. (2009). Partitives and the Semantics of Same. Handout for Sinn und Bedeutung 14.Google Scholar
  46. Stump, G. (1982). A GPSG fragment for ‘dependent nominals. Ms.Google Scholar
  47. Szabolcsi A. (2011) Quantification. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Tovena L., van Peteghem M. (2002) Différent vs. Autre et L’Opposition Réciproque vs. Comparatif. Lingvisticae Investigationes 25: 149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van den Berg, M. (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  50. van der Sandt R.A. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vermeulen K. (1993) Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2: 217–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options