Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 201–270 | Cite as

Friends and Colleagues: Plurality, Coordination, and the Structure of DP

  • Caroline HeycockEmail author
  • Roberto Zamparelli
Article

Starting from an analysis for the crosslinguistic variation in the grammaticality of DP-internal conjunctions such as This [man and woman] are in love, this article develops a theory of the syntax/semantics interface within the DP and a novel proposal for the interpretation of conjunction. The main claims are that plural/mass denotations are built in stages within the DP, by the combined effect of number features and semantic operators associated with functional heads; that languages differ in whether the denotation of nouns is filtered for singular or plural number; and that the word and crosslinguistically denotes Set Product, an operation which, in different contexts, can mimic the behavior of intersection and union.

Keywords

conjunction plurality number DP-structure syntax/semantics interface 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, S. P. 1987The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential AspectPhD thesisMITGoogle Scholar
  2. Ades, A., Steedman, M. 1982‘On the Order of Words’Linguistics and Philosophy4517538Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J., Cooper, R. 1981‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’Linguistics and Philosophy4159219Google Scholar
  4. Bayer, S. 1996The Coordination of Unlike CategoriesLanguage72579616Google Scholar
  5. Bergmann, M. 1982‘Cross-categorial Semantics’Linguistics and Philosophy5299401Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, J. 1993Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across RomancePhD thesisCUNYGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunt, C. H.: 1981, The Formal Semantics of Mass Terms. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Bunt, C. H. 1985Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic SemanticsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Carden, G. 1976English Quantifiers: Logical Structure and Linguistic VariationAcademic PressLondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng, C.-Y. 1973‘Response to Moravcsik’Hintikka, J.Moravczik, J.Suppes, P. eds. Approaches to Natural LanguageReidelDordrecht286288Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G. 1998aPlurality of Mass Nouns and the Notion of “Semantic ParameterRothstein, S. eds. Events and GrammarKluwerDordrecht53104Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, G. 1998b‘Reference to Kinds across Languages’Natural Language Semantics6339405Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. 1995The Minimalist ProgramMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. 2000‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’Martin, R.Michaels, D.Uriagereka, J. eds. Step by StepMIT PressCambridge, Mass89155Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. 2001‘Derivation by Phase’Kenstowicz, M. eds. Ken Hale: A Life in LanguageMIT PressCambridge, Mass152Google Scholar
  16. Cinque, G.,  et al. 1994‘Partial N-Movement in the Romance DP’Cinque, G. eds. Paths Towards Universal GrammarGeorgetown University PressWashington, D.C85110Google Scholar
  17. Contretas, H. 1986Spanish Bare NPs and the ECPBordelois, I.Contreras, H.Zagona, K. eds. Generative Studies in Spanish SyntaxForisDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper, R 1979‘Model Theory for a Fragment of English Syntax’ draft chapter of a projected bookMadisonWisconsinGoogle Scholar
  19. Corbett,  2000NumberCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Crisma, P.: 1991, ‘Functional Categories inside the Noun Phrase: A Study on the Distribution of Nominal Modifiers’, honors thesis, University of Venice.Google Scholar
  21. Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Mchombo, S., Peters, S. 1994‘What Do Reciprocals Mean?’Harvey, M.Santelmann, L. eds. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory 4Cornell UniversityIthaca, N.Y6178Google Scholar
  22. Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Kim, Y., Mchombo, S., Peters, S. 1998‘Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity’Linguistics and Philosophy21159210Google Scholar
  23. Dowty, D. 1988‘Type Raising, Functional Composition, and Non-Constitutent Conjunction’Oehrle, R.Bach, E.Wheeler, D. eds. Categorial Grammars and Natural Language StructuresReidelDordrecht153198Google Scholar
  24. Gillon, B. 1992‘Towards a Common Semantics for English Count and Mass Nouns’Linguistics and Philosophy13597640Google Scholar
  25. Giusti, G. 1991‘The Categorial Status of Quantified Nominals’Linguistische Berichte136438452Google Scholar
  26. Giusti, G. 1992La Sintassi dei Sintagmi Nominali Quantificati: Uno Studio ComparativoPhD thesisUniversity of VeniceGoogle Scholar
  27. Heim, I. 1982The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun PhrasesPhD thesisUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstGoogle Scholar
  28. Heycock, C. and R. Zamparelli: 1999, ‘Toward a Unified Analysis of DP Conjunction’, in P. Dekker (ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 127--132. Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Heycock, C., Zamparelli, R.,  et al. 2000‘Plurality and NP-Coordination’Hirotani, M. eds. Proceedings of NELS 30GLSAUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst341352Google Scholar
  30. Heycock, C., Zamparelli, R. 2003‘Coordinated Bare Definites’Linguistic Inquiry34443469Google Scholar
  31. Higginbotham, J. 1983Indefiniteness and PredicationReuland, E.ter Meulen, A. eds. The Representation of (In)DefinitenessMIT PressCambridge, Mass4370Google Scholar
  32. Hoeksema, J. 1983‘Plurality and Conjunction’Meulen, A. G. B. ter eds. Studies in Model-Theoretic SemanticsForisDordrecht6384Google Scholar
  33. Hoeksema, J. 1988‘The Semantic of Non-boolean and’Journal of Semantics61940Google Scholar
  34. Hudson, W. 1989‘Functional Categories and the Saturation of Noun Phrases’Carter, J.Dechaine, R. eds. Proceedings of NELS 19GLSAUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst207222Google Scholar
  35. Kadmon, N.: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetrical Quantification. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  36. Kayne, R. 1991‘Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO’Linguistic Inquiry22647686Google Scholar
  37. Keenan, E. L., Faltz, L. M. 1985Boolean Semantics for Natural LanguagesKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  38. Keenan, E. L., Stavi, J. 1986‘A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners’Linguistics and Philosophy9253326Google Scholar
  39. King, T. H., Dalrymple, M. 2004‘Determiner Agreement and Noun Conjunction’Journal of Linguistics4069104Google Scholar
  40. Kratzer, A. 1989‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’Linguistics and Philosophy12607653Google Scholar
  41. Krifka, M. 1990‘Boolean and Non-Boolean ‘and”Kálmán, L.Pólos, L. eds. Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and LanguageAkadémiai KiadóBudapest161188Google Scholar
  42. Krifka, M. 1999‘At Least Some Determiners Aren’t Determiners’Turner, K. eds. The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Vol. 1ElsevierOxford257291Google Scholar
  43. Krifka, M. 2003‘Bare NPs: Kind-Referring Indefinites Both or Neither?’, in R. B. Young and Y. Zhou, Proceedings of SALT 13CLC Publications, Cornell UniversityIthaca, N.Y180203Google Scholar
  44. Krifka, M.,  et al. 1995‘Genericity: An Introduction’pp. 1–124. The University of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. Ladusaw, W. 1992‘Expressing Negation’Barker, C.Dowty, D. eds. Proceedings of SALT 2CLSCornell University, Ithaca, N.Y236259Google Scholar
  46. Landman, F. 1989‘Groups, I’Linguistics and Philosophy12559605Google Scholar
  47. Landman, F.: 2000, ‘Predicate-Argument Mismatches and the Adjectival Theory of Indefinites’, manuscript. To appear in the proceedings of the Antwerpen Conference on NP-DP, 2000.Google Scholar
  48. Lasersohn, P. 1995PluralityConjunction and EventsKluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  49. Lecarme, J. 2002‘Gender Polarity: Theoretical Aspects of Somali Nominal Morphology’Boucher, P. eds. Many MorphologiesCascadilla PressSomerville, Mass109141Google Scholar
  50. Leonard, H., Goodman, N. 1940‘The Calculus of Individuals and Its Uses’Journal of Symbolic Logic54555Google Scholar
  51. Link, G. 1983‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach’Bäuerle, R.Schwarze, C.Stechow, A. von eds. Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of LanguageDe GruyterBerlin302323Google Scholar
  52. Link, G. 1987‘Generalized Quantifiers and Plurals’Gaerdenfors, P. eds. Generalized QuantifiersReidelDordrecht151180Google Scholar
  53. Longobardi, G. 1994‘Proper Names and the Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form’Linguistic Inquiry25609665Google Scholar
  54. Longobardi, G. 1999‘How Comparative is Semantics? A Unified Parametric Theory of Bare Nouns and Proper Names’manuscriptUniversità di TriesteGoogle Scholar
  55. Munn, A., Schmitt, C. 2005‘Number and Indefinites’Lingua115821855Google Scholar
  56. Partee, B. H.,  et al. 1987‘Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles’Groenendijk, F. eds. Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized QuantifiersForisDordrecht115143Google Scholar
  57. Partee, B., Rooth, M. 1983‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’Bäuerle, R.Schwarze, C.Stechow, A. von eds. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of LanguageDe GruyterBerlin361383Google Scholar
  58. Payne, J. 1985‘Complex Phrases and Complex Sentences’Shopen, T. eds. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2: Complex ConstructionsCambridge University PressCambridge341Google Scholar
  59. Pelletier, F. J., Schubert, L. K. 1989‘Mass Expressions’Gabbay, D.Guenthner, F. eds. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4KluwerDordrecht327407Google Scholar
  60. Permutter, D. 1971‘On the Article in English’Bierwisch, M.Heidolph, K. E. eds. Progress in Linguistics: A Collection of PapersMoutonThe Hague233248Google Scholar
  61. Pullum, G., Zwicky, A. 1986‘Phonological Resolution of Syntactic Feature Conflict’Language,62751773Google Scholar
  62. Quine, W. 1960Word and Object. MIT PressCambridgeMassGoogle Scholar
  63. Ritter, E. 1991‘Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modem Hebrew’Rothstein, S. eds. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 26Academic PressSan Diego3762Google Scholar
  64. Scha, R. 1981‘Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification’Groenendijk, J.Janssen, T.Stokhof, M. eds. Formal Methods in the Study of LanguageMathematisch CentrumAmsterdam483512Google Scholar
  65. Schwarzschild, R. S. 1996PluralitiesKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  66. Schwarzschild, R. 2002‘The Grammar of Measurement’Jackson, B. eds. Proceedings of SALT 12CLC PublicationsCornell University, Ithaca, N.Y225246Google Scholar
  67. Sharvy, R. 1980‘A More General Theory of Definite Descriptions’The Philosophical Review89607624Google Scholar
  68. Shieber, S. 1985‘An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar’presented as a tutorial session of the ACLChicagoGoogle Scholar
  69. Siloni, T.: 1994, Noun Phrases and Nominalizations. PhD thesis, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  70. Sportiche, D. 1988‘A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure’Linguistic Inquiry19425449Google Scholar
  71. Steedman, M. 1985‘Dependency and Coordination in the Grammar of Dutch and English’Language6523568Google Scholar
  72. Steedman, M. 2000The Syntactic ProcessMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  73. Stowell, T. 1983‘Subjects Across Categories’The Linguistic Review2285312Google Scholar
  74. Valois, D. 1991‘Internal Syntax of DP’PhD thesisUniversity of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Geenhoven, V.: 1996, Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. PhD thesis, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  76. Verkuyl, H. J. 1981‘Numerals and Quantifiers in X-bar Syntax and Their Semantic Interpretation’Groenendijk, J.Janssen, T.Stokhof, M. eds. Formal Methods in the Study of LanguageMathematisch CentrumAmsterdam567599Google Scholar
  77. Wechsler, S., Zlatic’, L. 2000‘A Theory of Agreement and Its Application to Serbo-Croatian’Language76(4)799832Google Scholar
  78. Winter, Y. 1996‘A Unified Semantic Treatment of Singular NP Coordination’Linguistics and Philosophy 19337-391Google Scholar
  79. Winter, Y. 1998Flexible Boolean SemanticsPhD thesisUniversiteit UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  80. Winter, Y. 2001Flexible Principles in Boolean SemanticsMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  81. Zamparelli, R. 1998‘A Theory of Kinds, Partitives and OF/Z Possessives’Alexiadou, A.Wilder, C. eds. Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner PhraseJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam259301Google Scholar
  82. Zimmermann, T. E. 1993‘On the Proper Treatment of Opacity in Certain Verbs’Natural Language Semantics1149179Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Facoltà di LettereUniversità di BergamoBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations