Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 447–483 | Cite as

Quantifiers and verb phrases: An exploration of propositional complexity

Original Paper

Abstract

In this article, I propose that intransitive verbs and stative, transitive verbs are fundamentally different from non-stative, transitive verbs. The latter create verb phrases that contain more than one propositional level whereas the former do not permit any propositional levels within their derived verb phrases. Evidence for this distinction comes from the interaction of again with the different types of verbs. Non-stative, transitive verbs allow again to introduce presuppositions that do not involve the verb’s subject. In contrast intransitive verbs and stative, transitive verbs only permit presuppositions that include the verb’s subject. Not only does the evidence of propositional complexity and the existence of subjectless presuppositions demonstrate a dichotomy between different types of verb phrases, such evidence and presuppositions also provide a means of testing in which syntactic positions quantifier phrases can be interpreted. As I demonstrate in this article, evidence from the presuppositional content of again suggests that object quantifier phrases normally cannot be interpreted within the verb phrase even when such phrases contain propositional levels. Only resultative verbs allow for quantifier phrases to be interpreted within the verb phrase.

Keywords

Presupposition Functional arguments Quantifiers VP structure Propositional complexity Adverbial modifiers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bale, A. (2006). Quantifiers, again and the complexity of verb phrases. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XV. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1981). Situations and attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver, D. (1994). When variables don’t vary enough. In M. Harvey & L. Santelman (Eds.), Proceedings SALT IV (pp. 35–60). Ithaca: Cornell University.)Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (1998). Presupposition and partiality: Back to the future. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10(2), 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, S. (2006). Focus on again. Linguistics & Philosophy, 29, 277–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, S., & Johnson, K. (2004). Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouma, G., Malouf, R., & Sag, I. (2001). Satisfying constraints on adjunction and extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, D. (1966). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Swart, H. (1999). Position and meaning: Time adverbials in context. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 336–361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  13. Dowty, D. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion “Thematic Role”. In G. Chierchia, B. Partee & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types, and meaning, vol. 2 (pp. 69–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Ernst, T. (2002). The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ernst, T. (2004). Domain adverbs and the syntax of adjuncts. In J. R. Austin, S. Engelberg & G. Rauh (Eds.), Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure (pp. 103–129). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, D. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heim, I. (1988). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger & M. Westcoat (Eds.), Proceedings of the second West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 114–125). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jäger, G., & Blutner, R. (2003). Competition and interpretation: The German adverb wieder (‘again’). In E. Lang, C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (pp. 393–416). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics & Philosophy, 12, 607–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Laenzlinger, C. (2004). A feature-based theory of adverb syntax. In J. R. Austin, S. Engelberg & G. Rauh (Eds.), Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure (pp. 205–252). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Landman, F. (2000). Events and pluralities: The Jerusalem lectures. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  26. May, R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. McCawley, J. (1976). Prelexical syntax. In Grammar and meaning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Morgan, J. (1969). On arguing about semantics. Papers in Linguistics, 1, 49–70.Google Scholar
  29. Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of english. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press. [Reprinted 1966.]Google Scholar
  32. Shaer, B. (2004). Left/right contrasts among English temporal adverbials. In J. R. Austin, S. Engelberg & G. Rauh (Eds.), Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure (pp. 289–332). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  33. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–214). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  34. von Stechow, A. (1995). Lexical decomposition in syntax. In U. Egli et al. (Eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organisation of language (pp. 81–177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. von Stechow, A. (1996). The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics, 13, 87–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Stechow, A. (2003). How are results represented and modified? Remarks on Jäger & Blutner’s anti-decomposition. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (pp. 416–451). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Eds.), Linguistics and philosophy (pp. 97–121). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Reprinted from Philosophical Review, 1957, Vol. 66, 143–160.]Google Scholar
  38. Westerstahl, D. (1984). Determiners and context sets. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 45–71). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MITLinguistics and PhilosophyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations