Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora
- 291 Downloads
- 8 Citations
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 logicPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Alrenga, P. (2007). Dimensions in the semantics of comparatives. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
- Barker C. (2007) Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 407–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beck S. (1997) On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 229–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beck S. (2000) The semantics of different: Comparison operator and relational adjective. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 101–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Brasoveanu A. (2008) Donkey pluralities: Plural information states vs. non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 129–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Brasoveanu A. (2010) Decomposing modal quantification. Journal of Semantics 27: 437–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brisson C. (2003) Plurals, all and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 129–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carlson G. (1987) Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 531–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (2000) Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics (2nd ed.). MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Dotlačil, J. (2010). Anaphora and distributivity. A study of same, different, reciprocals and others. PhD dissertation, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.Google Scholar
- Dowty, D. (1985). A unified indexical analysis of same and different: A response to Stump and Carlson. Ms, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Farkas D.F. (2002) Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Gallin D. (1975) Intensional and higher-order modal logic with applications to Montague semantics. North-Holland mathematics studies. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
- Heim I. (1985) Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms, UT AustinGoogle Scholar
- Heim I., Lasnik H., May R. (1991) Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 63–101Google Scholar
- Johnson K. (1996) Topics in syntax. University of Massachusetts, Lecture notesGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Kanazawa M. (2001) Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 383–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 7, pp. 363–385). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Keenan E. (1992) Beyond the Frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 199–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Krifka M. (1996) Parametric sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 555–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Larson R. (1990) Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632Google Scholar
- 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.
- McCawley, J. (1988). The comparative conditional construction in English, German and Chinese. In Proceedings of BLS (Vol. 14, pp. 176–187).Google Scholar
- Moltmann F. (1992) Reciprocals and same/different: Towards a semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 411–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
- Nouwen R. (2007) On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36: 123–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schwarzschild R. (1996) Pluralities. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Smith, E. A. (2010). Correlational comparison in English. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
- Solomon, M. (2009). Partitives and the Semantics of Same. Handout for Sinn und Bedeutung 14.Google Scholar
- Stump, G. (1982). A GPSG fragment for ‘dependent nominals. Ms.Google Scholar
- Szabolcsi A. (2011) Quantification. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Tovena L., van Peteghem M. (2002) Différent vs. Autre et L’Opposition Réciproque vs. Comparatif. Lingvisticae Investigationes 25: 149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- van den Berg, M. (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- van der Sandt R.A. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vermeulen K. (1993) Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2: 217–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar