Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 161–203 | Cite as

Swarms: Spatiotemporal grouping across domains

  • Robert HendersonEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper presents cross-domain evidence that natural language makes use of (at least) two ways of individuating collective entities that differ in terms of how they cohere. The first kind, which I call swarm reference, picks out higher-order collective entities defined in terms of the spatial and temporal configuration of their constituent individuals. The second, which corresponds to canonical cases of group reference (e.g. committee, team, etc.), makes use of non-spatiotemporal notions. To motivate this distinction, I present systematic differences in how these two types of collective reference behave linguistically, both in the individual and event domains. These differences support two primary results. First, they are used as tests to isolate a new class of collective nouns that denote swarm individuals, both in English, as well as other languages like Romanian. I then consider a crosslinguistically common type of pluractionality, called event-internal in the previous literature (Cusic 1981, Wood 2007), and show that its properties are best explained if the relevant verbs denote swarm events. By reducing event-internal pluractionality to a type of collective reference also available for nouns, this work generates a new strong argument that pluractionality involves the same varieties of plural reference in the event domain that are seen in the individual domain.

Keywords

Groups Pluractionality Plurality Cross-domain parallels 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I owe many people a debt of gratitude for their encouragement and support while I was writing this paper. Most importantly, I need to thank the Kaqchikel speakers who provided judgments for the second half of the paper, namely Juan Ajsivinac, Ana Lopez de Mateo, Flora Simón, Magda Sotz Mux, Gonzalo Ticun, and Nicolas Xoc. In addition to their grammaticality judgments, they all provided major insights into the workings of Kaqchikel pluractionality. I also need to thank Judith Aissen, Ryan Bennett, Adrian Brasoveanu, Lucas Champollion, Jakub Dotlačil, Donka Farkas, and Hazel Pearson for their input when this work was in its nascent form. In the later stages of the project I had extremely helpful discussions with Chris Barker, Carrie Gillon, Jessica Rett, Katherine Ritchie, Brett Sherman, and Alexis Wellwood, the participants in the 4th Cornell Workshop on Philosophy & Linguistics, as well as the members of SAMBDA: Jon Brennan, Ezra Keshet, Lisa Levinson, and Rich Thomason. Finally, I need to thank Louise McNally and three NLLT reviewers. While the support of these friends and colleagues has been indispensable, all remaining errors are, of course, my own.

References

  1. Bach, Emmon. 1981. Time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In Radical pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 63–81. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  2. Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (1): 5–16. doi:10.1002/9780470758335.ch13. Google Scholar
  3. Bar-El, Leora. 2008. Verbal number and aspect in Skwxwú7mesh. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 37: 31–54. doi: 10.4000/rlv.1695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, Chris. 1992. Group terms in English: Representing groups as atoms. Journal of Semantics 9 (1): 69–93. doi: 10.1093/jos/9.1.69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Robert Henderson. 2009. Varieties of distributivity: One by one vs. each. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19, eds. Neil Ashton, Anca Chereches, and David Lutz. Ithaca: CLC Publications. doi: 10.3765/salt.v19i0.2538. Google Scholar
  6. Carnoy, Albert J. 1917. Adjectival nouns in Vulgar Latin and Early Romance. In Romantic review 8, eds. Henry Alfred Todd and Raymond Weeks, 166–197. Lancaster: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Casati, Roberto, and Achille C. Varzi. 1999. Parts and places: The structures of spatial representation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  8. Cojtí, Narciso, Martín Chacach, and Marcos Calí. 2001. Diccionario kaqchikel. Guatemala: Cholsamaj. Google Scholar
  9. Champollion, Lucas. 2010. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. PhD diss, University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  10. Chelaru-Ionita, Oana, and Andrei Bantas. 1978. English vs Romanian collectives, Technical report, University of Bucharest. Google Scholar
  11. Collins, Chris. 2001. Aspects of plurality in ǂHoan. Language 77 (3): 456–476. doi:10.1353/lan.2001.0141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowell, Mark W. 1964. A reference grammar of Syrian Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Cusic, David. 1981. Verbal plurality and aspect. PhD diss, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  14. Davies, Mark. 2008. COCA. Corpus of Contemporary American English. Google Scholar
  15. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dowty, David. 2000. ‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘argument alternation’. In Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches, eds. Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Dowty, David. 2001. The semantic asymmetry of ‘argument alternations’ (and why it matters). Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 44: 171–186. Google Scholar
  18. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1968. Studien zur verbalen pluralität. Wien: Bülau in Kommission. Google Scholar
  19. Garrett, Andrew. 2001. Reduplication and infixation in Yurok: Morphology, semantics, and diachrony. International Journal of American Linguistics 67 (3): 264–312. doi: 10.1086/466460. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grimm, Scott. 2012. Number and individuation. PhD diss, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  21. Gupta, Anil. 1980. The logic of common nouns. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  22. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  23. Henderson, Robert. 2012. Ways of pluralizing events. PhD diss, University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  24. Hinrichs, Erhard. 1985. A compositional semantics for aktionsarten and NP reference in English. PhD diss, Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  25. Hoeksema, Jack. 2009. The swarm alternation revisited. In Theory and evidence in semantics, eds. Erhard Hinrichs and John Nerbonne, 52–80. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  26. Jacobson, Steven A. 1984. Yup’ik Eskimo dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska. Google Scholar
  27. Jespersen, Otto. 1924/1992. The philosophy of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  28. Kamp, Hans. 1979. Some remarks on the logic of change: Part I. In Time, tense and quantifiers, ed. Christian Rohrer. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  29. Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Semantics and contextual expression, eds. Renate Bartsch, Theo Vennemann, and Johan van Benthem, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  30. Krifka, Manfred. 1990. Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 13 (5): 487–520. doi: 10.1007/BF00627291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical matters, eds. Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 29–54. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  32. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landman, Fred. 1989a. Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (5): 559–605. doi: 10.1007/BF00627774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landman, Fred. 1989b. Groups, II. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (6): 723–744. doi:10.1007/BF00632603. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landman, Fred. 1991. Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lasersohn, Peter. 1998. Generalized distributivity operators. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (1): 83–93. doi: 10.1023/A:1005317815339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laughlin, Robert M. 1975. The great Tzotzil dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantan. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Google Scholar
  40. Link, Godehard. 1983/2002. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Formal semantics: The essential readings, eds. Paul Portner and Barbara Partee, 127–146. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  41. Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  42. Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (3): 415–434. doi: 10.1007/BF00149015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parrish, Julia K, Steven V Viscido, and Daniel Grünbaum. 2002. Self-organized fish schools: An examination of emergent properties. Biological Bulletin 202 (3): 296–305. doi: 10.2307/1543482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pearson, Hazel. 2011. A new semantics for group nouns. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 28, ed. Mary Byram Washburn, 160–168. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  45. Persson, Gunnar. 1989. On the semantics of collective nouns in English. In Instead of flowers: Papers in honour of Mats Rydén on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, eds. Gunnar Persson Bengt Odenstedt and Mats Rydén, 179–195. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Google Scholar
  46. Richards, Michael. 2003. Atlas lingüístico de Guatemala. Guatemala: Editorial Serviprensa. Google Scholar
  47. Ritchie, Katherine. 2013. What are groups? Philosophical Studies 166 (2): 257–272. doi:10.1007/s11098-012-0030-5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rothstein, Susan. 2010. Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 27 (3): 343–397. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffq007. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Salkoff, Morris. 1983. Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language 59 (2): 288–346. doi: 10.2307/413576. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2011. Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 39, eds. Kevin Mullin Suzi Lima and Brian Smith, 1–18. Google Scholar
  52. Smith, Barry. 1996. Mereotopology: A theory of parts and boundaries. Data & Knowledge Engineering 20 (3): 287–303. doi: 10.1016/S0169-023X(96)00015-8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swart, Henriëtte de. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16 (2): 347–385. doi: 10.1023/A:1005916004600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor, Barry. 1977. Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (2): 199–220. doi:10.1007/BF00351103. Google Scholar
  55. Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2478-4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wood, Esther Jane. 2007. The semantic typology of pluractionality. PhD diss, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  57. Xrakovskij, Viktor S. 1997. Typology of imperative constructions. München: Lincom Europa. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUnited States

Personalised recommendations