Abstract
In this article, I propose that intransitive verbs and stative, transitive verbs are fundamentally different from non-stative, transitive verbs. The latter create verb phrases that contain more than one propositional level whereas the former do not permit any propositional levels within their derived verb phrases. Evidence for this distinction comes from the interaction of again with the different types of verbs. Non-stative, transitive verbs allow again to introduce presuppositions that do not involve the verb’s subject. In contrast intransitive verbs and stative, transitive verbs only permit presuppositions that include the verb’s subject. Not only does the evidence of propositional complexity and the existence of subjectless presuppositions demonstrate a dichotomy between different types of verb phrases, such evidence and presuppositions also provide a means of testing in which syntactic positions quantifier phrases can be interpreted. As I demonstrate in this article, evidence from the presuppositional content of again suggests that object quantifier phrases normally cannot be interpreted within the verb phrase even when such phrases contain propositional levels. Only resultative verbs allow for quantifier phrases to be interpreted within the verb phrase.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bale, A. (2006). Quantifiers, again and the complexity of verb phrases. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XV. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications.
Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1981). Situations and attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 668–691.
Beaver, D. (1994). When variables don’t vary enough. In M. Harvey & L. Santelman (Eds.), Proceedings SALT IV (pp. 35–60). Ithaca: Cornell University.)
Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (1998). Presupposition and partiality: Back to the future. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10(2), 147–182.
Beck, S. (2006). Focus on again. Linguistics & Philosophy, 29, 277–314.
Beck, S., & Johnson, K. (2004). Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 97–124.
Bouma, G., Malouf, R., & Sag, I. (2001). Satisfying constraints on adjunction and extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 1–65.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, D. (1966). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). University of Pittsburgh Press.
de Swart, H. (1999). Position and meaning: Time adverbials in context. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 336–361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Dowty, D. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion “Thematic Role”. In G. Chierchia, B. Partee & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types, and meaning, vol. 2 (pp. 69–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ernst, T. (2002). The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ernst, T. (2004). Domain adverbs and the syntax of adjuncts. In J. R. Austin, S. Engelberg & G. Rauh (Eds.), Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure (pp. 103–129). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fox, D. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Heim, I. (1988). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger & M. Westcoat (Eds.), Proceedings of the second West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 114–125). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Jäger, G., & Blutner, R. (2003). Competition and interpretation: The German adverb wieder (‘again’). In E. Lang, C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (pp. 393–416). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics & Philosophy, 12, 607–653.
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Laenzlinger, C. (2004). A feature-based theory of adverb syntax. In J. R. Austin, S. Engelberg & G. Rauh (Eds.), Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure (pp. 205–252). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Landman, F. (2000). Events and pluralities: The Jerusalem lectures. Boston: Kluwer.
Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
May, R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
McCawley, J. (1976). Prelexical syntax. In Grammar and meaning. New York: Academic Press.
Morgan, J. (1969). On arguing about semantics. Papers in Linguistics, 1, 49–70.
Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of english. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press. [Reprinted 1966.]
Shaer, B. (2004). Left/right contrasts among English temporal adverbials. In J. R. Austin, S. Engelberg & G. Rauh (Eds.), Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure (pp. 289–332). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–214). New York: New York University Press.
von Stechow, A. (1995). Lexical decomposition in syntax. In U. Egli et al. (Eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organisation of language (pp. 81–177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
von Stechow, A. (1996). The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics, 13, 87–138.
von Stechow, A. (2003). How are results represented and modified? Remarks on Jäger & Blutner’s anti-decomposition. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (pp. 416–451). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Eds.), Linguistics and philosophy (pp. 97–121). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Reprinted from Philosophical Review, 1957, Vol. 66, 143–160.]
Westerstahl, D. (1984). Determiners and context sets. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 45–71). Dordrecht: Foris.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bale, A.C. Quantifiers and verb phrases: An exploration of propositional complexity. Nat Language Linguistic Theory 25, 447–483 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9019-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9019-8