Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 63–98 | Cite as

On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half

Article

Abstract

Proportional quantifiers have played a central role in the development of formal semantics because they set a benchmark for the expressive power needed to describe quantification in natural language (Barwise and Cooper Linguist Philos 4:159–219, 1981). The proportional quantifier most, in particular, supplied the initial motivation for adopting Generalized Quantifier Theory (GQT) because its meaning is definable as a relation between sets of individuals, which are taken to be semantic primitives in GQT. This paper proposes an alternative analysis of most that does not treat it as a lexical item whose meaning is accessible without the help of compositional processes. Instead, proportional most is analyzed as the superlative of many (cf. Bresnan Linguist Inq 4(3):274–344, 1973). Two types of empirical evidence are presented in support of this view, both exploiting the fact that only a decompositional analysis of proportional quantifiers provides the means to generate different logical forms for seemingly equivalent statements of the form most A B and more than half of the A B.

Keywords

Quantification Generalized Quantifier Theory Superlatives Degrees Verification Psycholinguistics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ariel Mira. (2004) Most. Language 80: 658–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise, Jon, Robin Cooper. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bresnan, Joan. (1973) Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3): 275–344Google Scholar
  4. Farkas, Donka, Katalin Kiss. E. (2000) On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 417–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox, Danny. 2006. Free choice and a theory of scalar implicature. MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Hackl Fox, Danny, Martin Hackl. (2006) On the universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586Google Scholar
  7. Geurts, Bart, Rick Nouwen. (2005) “At least” et al.: the semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83: 533–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  9. Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. University of Texas at Austin. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zc0ZjY0M.
  10. Heim, Irene. 1999. Superlatives. MIT lecture notes. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TI1MTlhZ/Superlative.pdf.
  11. Heim, Irene. 2001. Degree operators and scope. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae, ed. C. Féry and W. Sternefeld, 214–239. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, L. 2005. The border wars: a neo-Gricean perspective. In Where semantics meets pragmatics, ed. Klaus von Heusinger and Ken Turner, 21–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ionin, Tania, Matushansky. Ora (2006) The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23(4): 315–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keenan, Edward. (2003) The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics?. Natural Language Semantics 11(2): 187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keenan, Edward, and Dag Westerstahl. 1997. Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In Handbook of logic and language, ed. Johann van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 873–893. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy, Chris. (1999) Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Garland Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Semantic and contextual expressions, ed. Renate Bartsch, Johann van Benthem, and Peter van Emde Boas, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  18. Krifka, Manfr (1996) Parametrized sum individuals for plural reference and partitive quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(6): 555–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krifka, Manfred. 1999. At least some determiners aren't determiners. In The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. (=Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, Vol. 1), ed. Ken Turner, 257–291. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. Landman, Fred (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  22. Mostowski, Andrzej. (1957) On a generalization of quantifiers. Fundamenta Mathematicae 44: 12–36Google Scholar
  23. Nerbonne, John. 1994. A semantics for nominal comparatives. In Proceedings of the 9th Amsterdam Colloquium. ed. Paul Dekker and Martin Stockhof, 487–506. Amsterdam: ILLG.Google Scholar
  24. Papafragou, Anna, and Naomi Schwarz. 2006. Most wanted. Language Acquisition 13 (Special issue: On the acquisition of quantification): 207–251.Google Scholar
  25. Sharvit, Yael, Penka Stateva. (2002) Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 453–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stateva, Penka. 2005. Presuppositions in superlatives. GLOW abstract.Google Scholar
  27. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. In Papers in theoretical linguistics, ed. Naoki Fukui, Tova Rapoport, and Elizabeth Sagey, 245–265. Cambridge, Mass: MITWPL 8.Google Scholar
  28. Szabolcsi, A. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of scope taking, ed. Anna Szabolcsi, 109–155. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. van Benthem, Johan. (1986) Essays in logical semantics. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  30. von Stechow, Arnim. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 1989. The semantics of plurality quantification: the proportion problem is a pseudo-problem. In Proceedings of ESCOL ’89, 301–312.Google Scholar
  32. Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 1998: The unified semantics of most. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, 320–334.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Cognitive SciencePomona CollegeClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations