Advertisement

Affixal Quantification and Its Relation with A- and D-Quantifications

  • Peppina Po-lun Lee
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 87)

Abstract

In previous chapters, I have presented the basic facts of Cantonese verbal suffixes and have claimed that verbal suffixes -hoi, -saai and -maai are quantifiers and unselective binders, taking either a TP or v’/vP scope. As affixal quantifiers, the selection of their quantified items is determined by the Quantification Accessibility Hierarchy proposed in this book, which is syntactic in nature. Their mapping to either the restrictor or the nuclear scope is determined by the lexical semantics of these quantifiers, with no unified mapping found.

Keywords

Lexical Semantic Bare Plural Verbal Argument Existential Presupposition Nuclear Scope 
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.

References

  1. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In The generic book, ed. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 176–223. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Conrad, Bent. 1982. Referring and non-referring phrases: A study in the use of the gerund and the infinitive. Publications in the Department of English, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  3. Dahl, Östen. 1975. On generics. In Formal semantics of natural language, ed. Edward Keen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. de Swart, Henriëtte. 1993. Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifier approach. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, Nick. 1995. A-quantifiers and scope. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara H. Partee, 207–270. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of “even”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 39–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Herburger, Elena. 2000. What counts: Focus and quantification. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hinterwimmer, Stefan. 2008. Q-adverbs as selective binders: The quantificational variability of free relatives and definite DPs. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation GRASS 2. In Truth, interpretation and information, ed. J. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen and M. Stokhof. Dordrecht: Foris, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. Kaplan, Jeff. 1984. Obligatory “too” in English. Language 60(3): 510–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition, ed. Ch Oh and D.A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kleiber, Georges. 1985. Du côté de la genericité verbale: les approaches quantificationelles. Languages 79: 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The generic book, ed. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125–174. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Krifka, Manfred. 1987. The outline of genericity, partly in collaboration with Claudia Gerstner. In SNS-Bericht, 87–23, University of Tűbingen, Tűbingen.Google Scholar
  20. Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia, and Godehard Link. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The generic book, ed. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lawler, John. 1973. Studies in English generics. In University of Michigan Papers in Linguistics 1:1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language, ed. E. Keenan, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newton, Brian. 1979. Scenarios, modality and verbal aspect in modern Greek. Language 55: 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Quantificational structures and compositionality. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara H. Partee, 541–601. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, distributed by GLSA, Amherst.Google Scholar
  26. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Rullmann, Hotze. 1997. Even, polarity and scope. In Papers in experimental and theoretical linguistics, 4, ed. M. Gibson, G. Wiebe, and G. Libben, 40–64. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  29. Rullmann, Hotze. 2003. Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics 20: 329–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schubert, Lenhart K., and Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 1989. Generically speaking: Or, using discourse representation theory to interpret generics. In Properties, types and meaning, Semantic issues, vol. 2, ed. G. Chierarchia, B. Partee, and R. Turner, 193–268. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwarz, Bernhard. 2005. Scalar additive particles in negative contexts. Natural Language Semantics 13: 125–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spears, Arthur. 1974. On the notion occasion and the analysis of aspect. In CLS 10, 672–683. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  34. von Fintel, Kai-Uwe. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  35. Wilkinson, Karina. 1996. The scope of “even”. Natural Language Semantics 4: 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peppina Po-lun Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chinese, Translation and LinguisticsCity University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations