The comparative and degree pluralities
- 751 Downloads
Quantifiers in phrasal and clausal comparatives often seem to take distributive scope in the matrix clause: for instance, the sentence John is taller than every girl is is true iff for every girl it holds that John is taller than that girl. Broadly speaking, two approaches exist that derive this reading without postulating the (problematic) wide scope of the quantifier: the negation analysis and the interval analysis of than-clauses. We propose a modification of the interval analysis in which than-clauses are not treated as degree intervals but as degree pluralities. This small change has significant consequences: it yields a straightforward account of differentials in comparatives and it correctly predicts the existence of hitherto unnoticed readings, viz. cumulative readings of clausal comparatives. Finally, this paper also makes the case that using degree pluralities is conceptually appealing: it allows us to restrict the analysis of comparatives by mechanisms that are postulated independently in the semantics of pluralities.
KeywordsMatrix Clause Natural Language Semantic Measure Phrase Distributive Reading Atomic Degree
- Artstein, R., and N. Francez. 2003. Plural times and temporal modification. In Proceedings of the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. P. Dekker, and R. van Rooy, 63–68. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
- Beck, S. 2014. Plural predication and quantifier ‘than’-clauses. In The art and craft of semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, ed. L. Crnic, and U. Sauerland. MITWPL 70, 91–115. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
- Bresnan J. (1973) Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3): 275–343Google Scholar
- Champollion, L. 2010a. Cumulative readings of every do not provide evidence for events and thematic roles. In Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium 2009, ed. M. Aloni, and K. Schulz. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
- Champollion, L. 2010b. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect andmeasurement. Ph. D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
- Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Davies, M. 2008. The corpus of contemporary american english (coca): 385 million words, 1990–present. http://www.americancorpus.org.
- Dotlačil, J. 2010. Anaphora and distributivity: A study of same, different, reciprocals and others. Ph. D. thesis, LOT.Google Scholar
- Dowty, D.R., and B. Brodie. 1984. The semantics of “floated” quantifiers in a transformational grammar. In Proceedings of WCCFL 3, ed. M. Cobler, S. MacKaye, and M.T. Wescoat, 75–90. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
- Fintel, K. von, and S. Iatridou. 2005. What to do if you want to go to Harlem: Anankastic conditionals and related matters. Manuscript, MIT. http://web.mit.edu/fintel/www/harlem-rutgers.pdf.
- Fitzgibbons, N., Y. Sharvit, and J. Gajewski. 2008. Plural superlatives and distributivity. In Proceedings of SALT 18, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito, 302–318. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
- Fleisher, N. (To appear). Comparing theories of quantifiers in than clauses: lessons from downward-entailing differentials. Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
- Gajewski, J. 2008. More on quantifiers in comparative clauses. In Proceedings of SALT 18, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito, 340–357. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
- Heim, I. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of SALT 10, ed. B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 40–64. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
- Heim, I. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Manuscript, MIT. Online at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mJiMDBlN/comparatives%20as%20GQs.
- Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Hoeksema, J. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. In Studies in modeltheoretic semantics, ed. A. ter Meulen, 63–83. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
- Hoeksema, J. 1996. Floating quantifiers, partitives and distributivity. In Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions, ed. J. Hoeksema, 57–106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, C. 1997. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. PhD. Thesis, UC San Diego.Google Scholar
- Krasikova, S. 2008. Quantifiers in comparatives. In Proceedings of SuB12, ed. A. Grønn, 337–352. Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
- Kratzer, A. 2003. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst; 4 chapters. http://semanticsarchive.net.
- Krifka,M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics. In Semantics and contextual expressions, ed. R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
- Landman, F. 1996. Plurality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 425–457. Dordrecht: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice- theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Link, G. 1987. Generalised quantifiers and plurals. In Generalised quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 31), ed. P. Gårdenfors, 151–180. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Matushansky, O., and E.G. Ruys. 2006. Meilleurs voeux: Quelques notes sur la comparaison plurielle. In Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 6, ed. O. Bonami and P.C. Hofherr, 309–330. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
- May R. (1985) Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Mass.: MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Nouwen, R. 2015. Plurality. In Cambridge handbook of semantics, ed. M. Aloni and P. Dekker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Roberts, C. 1987. Modal Subordination, anaphora and distributivity. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachussets, Amherst.Google Scholar
- Scha, R., and D. Stallard 1988. Multi-level plurals and distributivity. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the ACL. 17–24. Morristown, N.J.: ACL.Google Scholar
- Schein, B. 1993. Plurals and events (Current studies in linguistics 23). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Schwarzschild, R. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- van den Berg, M. 1996. Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse: The dynamics of nominal anaphora. Ph. D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- van Rooij, R. 2008. Comparatives and quantifiers. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7, ed. O. Bonami and P. Hofherr, 423–444. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.