Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 355–369 | Cite as

Association with distributivity and the problem of multiple antecedents for singular different

Research Article

Abstract

Brasoveanu (Linguist Philos 34:93–168, 2011) argues that “different” exhibits what he calls association with distributivity: a distributive operator such as “each” creates a two-part context that propagates through the compositional semantics in a way that can be accessed by a subordinate “different”. We show that Brasoveanu’s analysis systematically undergenerates, failing to provide interpretations of sentences such as “Every1 boy claimed every girl read a different1 poem”, in which “different” can associate with a non-local distributive operator. We provide a generalized version of association with distributivity, implemented using de Groote’s (in: Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XVI, 2006) continuation-based dynamic semantics. We compare our analysis with the one in Brasoveanu (2011), drawing conclusions about computational tractability, scope of indefinites, and whether it is possible or even desirable to arrive at a unified analysis of internal and external readings of “different”.

Keywords

Different Same Association with distributivity Dynamic semantics Continuations Scope Indefinites 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barker C. (2007) Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 407–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brasoveanu A. (2008) Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(2): 129–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brasoveanu A. (2011) Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 34: 93–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Groote, P. (2006). Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XVI.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations