Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 349–371 | Cite as

Cumulation is Needed: A Reply to Winter (2000)

  • Sigrid Beck
  • Uli Sauerland


Winter (2000) argues that so-called co-distributive or cumulative readings do not involve polyadic quantification (contra proposals by Krifka, Schwarzschild, Sternefeld, and others). Instead, he proposes that all such readings involve a hidden anaphoric dependency or a lexical mechanism. We show that Winter's proposal is insufficient for a number of cases of cumulative readings, and that Krifka's and Sternefeld's polyadic **-operator is needed in addition to dependent definites. Our arguments come from new observations concerning dependent plurals and clause-boundedness effects with cumulative readings.


Cumulative Reading Polyadic Quantification Anaphoric Dependency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoun, J. and Y.-H. A. Li: 1993, Syntax of Scope. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  2. Barss, A. and H. Lasnik: 1986, “A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects”, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, S.: 2000, “Star Operators. Episode One: Defense of the Double Star”, in K. Kusumoto and E. Villalta (eds.), UMOP 23: Issues in Semantics, pp. 1–23. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. Bruening, B.: 2000, “QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD”, unpublished ms., MIT. (to appear in Linguistic Inquiry)Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G.: 1984, “Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G.: 1993, “Questions with Quantifiers”, Natural Language Semantics 2, 181–234.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1976, “Conditions on Rules of Grammar”, Linguistic Analysis 2, 303–351.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Dalrymple, M., M. Kanazawa, Y. Kim, S. Mchombo and S. Peters: 1998, “Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity”, Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 159–210.Google Scholar
  10. Fiengo, R. and J. Higginbotham: 1981, “Opacity in NP”, Linguistic Analysis 7, 395–421.Google Scholar
  11. Hackl, M.: 2000, Comparative Quantifiers, Ph.D dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Hackl, M.: 2001, “A Comparative Syntax for Comparative Quantifiers”, in Proceedings of NELS 31, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (to appear).Google Scholar
  13. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer: 1998, Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Malden.Google Scholar
  14. Henkin, L.: 1961, “Some Remarks on Infinitely Long Formulas”, in Infinitistic Methods, pp. 167–183. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe and Pergamon, Warsaw.Google Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J.: 1974, “Quantifiers vs. Quantification Theory”, Linguistic Inquiry 5, 153–177.Google Scholar
  16. Kratzer, A.: 1998, “More Structural Analogies between Pronouns and Tenses”, in Proceedings of SALT 8, pp. 92–110. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  17. Krifka, M.: 1986, Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen, Ph.D. dissertation, Universität München. (Published by Wilhelm Finck, Munich, 1989.)Google Scholar
  18. Krifka, M.: 1996, “Pragmatic Strengthening in Plural Predications and Donkey Sentences”, in Proceedings of SALT 6, pp. 136–153. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  19. Krifka, M.: 1999, “At Least Some Determiners Aren”t Determiners”, in K. Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, pp. 257–291. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Kroch, A.: 1974, The Semantics of Scope in English, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Larson, R.: 1990, “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff”, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 589–632.Google Scholar
  22. Link, G.: 1983, “The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach”, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pp. 303–323. De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. May, R.: 1977, The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  24. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, J.: 1986, The Formal Semantics of Point of View, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  26. Partee, B.: 1973, “Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English”, Journal of Philosophy 70, 601–609.Google Scholar
  27. Partee, B.: 1989, “Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts”, in Proceedings of CLS 25, pp. 342–365. The University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Pesetsky, D.: 1995, Zero Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Sauerland, U.: 1994, “Codistributivity and Reciprocals”, in V. Samian and J. Schaeffer (eds.), Proceedings of WECOL 24, pp. 224–237. California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
  30. Sauerland, U.: 1998, “Plurals, Derived Predicates and Reciprocals”, in U. Sauerland and O. Percus (eds.), The Interpretive Tract, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25, pp. 177–204. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Scha, R.: 1981, “Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification”, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part 2, Mathematical Centre Tracts 136, University of Amsterdam, pp. 483–512. Reprinted in J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof, and T. Janssen (eds.), 1984, Truth, Interpretation and Information, pp. 131–58. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  32. Schlenker, P.: 1999, Propositional Attitudes and Indexicality: A Cross-Categorial Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Schwarzschild, R.: 1992, “Types of Plural Individuals”, Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 641–675.Google Scholar
  34. Sternefeld, W.: 1998, “Reciprocity and Cumulative Predication”, Natural Language Semantics 6, 303–337.Google Scholar
  35. van Benthem, J.: 1989, “Polyadic Quantifiers”, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 437–464.Google Scholar
  36. Winter, Y.: 2000, “Distributivity and Dependency”, Natural Language Semantics 8, 27–69.Google Scholar
  37. Yoon, Y.: 1996, “Total and Partial Predicates and the Weak and Strong Interpretations”, Natural Language Semantics 4, 217–236.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sigrid Beck
  • Uli Sauerland

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations