Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 45–78 | Cite as

The comparative and degree pluralities

Open Access
Article

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Aloni M., Roelofsen F. (2014) Indefinites in comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 22(2): 145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alrenga P., Kennedy C. (2014) No more shall we part: Quantifiers in English comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 22(1): 1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Beck S. (2010) Quantifiers in than-clauses. Semantics & Pragmatics 3: 1–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck S. (2012) Lucinda driving too fast again: the scalar properties of ambiguous than-clauses. Journal of Semantics 29: 1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Beck S., Sauerland U. (2000) Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 349–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck S., Sharvit Y. (2002) Pluralities of questions. Journal of Semantics 19(2): 105–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhatt R., Pancheva R. (2004) Late merge of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brasoveanu A. (2008) Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(2): 129–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bresnan J. (1973) Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3): 275–343Google Scholar
  12. Carlson G. (1977) Amount relatives. Language 53: 520–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Champollion, L. 2010b. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect andmeasurement. Ph. D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies, M. 2008. The corpus of contemporary american english (coca): 385 million words, 1990–present. http://www.americancorpus.org.
  18. Dotlačil, J. 2010. Anaphora and distributivity: A study of same, different, reciprocals and others. Ph. D. thesis, LOT.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. Fleisher, N. (To appear). Comparing theories of quantifiers in than clauses: lessons from downward-entailing differentials. Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Gillon B. (1987) The readings of plural noun phrases in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Heim, I. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Manuscript, MIT. Online at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mJiMDBlN/comparatives%20as%20GQs.
  27. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoeksema, J. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. In Studies in modeltheoretic semantics, ed. A. ter Meulen, 63–83. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Kennedy, C. 1997. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. PhD. Thesis, UC San Diego.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy C. (2002) Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(3): 553–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krasikova, S. 2008. Quantifiers in comparatives. In Proceedings of SuB12, ed. A. Grønn, 337–352. Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
  33. Kratzer, A. 2003. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst; 4 chapters. http://semanticsarchive.net.
  34. 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
  35. Krifka M. (1996) Parametrized sum individuals for plural reference and partitive quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 555–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Landman F. (1989) Groups. Part I, II. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(559–605): 723–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Landman, F. 1996. Plurality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 425–457. Dordrecht: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Landman F. (2000) Events and plurality. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larson R. (1988) Scope and comparison. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lasersohn P. (1998) Generalized distributivity operators. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(1): 83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. May R. (1985) Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Mass.: MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Nouwen R. (2003) Complement anaphora and interpretation. Journal of Semantics 20(1): 73–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nouwen R. (2007) On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36(2): 123–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nouwen, R. 2015. Plurality. In Cambridge handbook of semantics, ed. M. Aloni and P. Dekker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts, C. 1987. Modal Subordination, anaphora and distributivity. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachussets, Amherst.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Schein, B. 1993. Plurals and events (Current studies in linguistics 23). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schwarzschild, R. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  53. Schwarzschild R. (2008) The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(2): 308–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwarzschild R., Wilkinson K. (2002) Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10: 1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. von Stechow A. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Winter Y. (2000) Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics 8: 27–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winter Y. (2002) Atoms and sets: a characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 493–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

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.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Language and CognitionUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Languages, Literature and CommunicationUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations