Skip to main content
Log in

Modified numerals and maximality

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we describe and attempt to solve a puzzle arising from the interpretation of modified numerals like less than five and between two and five. The puzzle is this: such modified numerals seem to mean different things depending on whether they combine with distributive or non-distributive predicates. When they combine with distributive predicates, they intuitively impose a kind of upper bound, whereas when they combine with non-distributive predicates, they do not (they sometimes even impose a lower bound). We propose and explore in detail four solutions to this puzzle, each involving some notion of maximality, but differing in the type of maximality involved (‘standard’ maximality versus ‘informativity-based’ maximality) and in the source of maximality (lexically encoded in the meaning of the numeral modifier versus non-lexical). While the full range of data we consider do not conclusively favor one theory over the other three, we do argue that overall the evidence (i) goes against the view that modified numerals lexically encode a ‘standard’ maximality operator, and (ii) suggests the need for a pragmatic blocking mechanism that filters out readings (logical forms) of sentences that are generated by the grammar but intuitively unavailable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrusán, M. (2007). Contradiction and grammar: The case of weak islands. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/41704

  • Abrusán M., Spector B.: A semantics for degree questions based on intervals: Negative islands and their obviation. Journal of Semantics, 28(1), 107–147 (2011). doi:10.1093/jos/ffq013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S., Rullmann H.: A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics, 7(3), 249–298 (1999). doi:10.1023/A:1008373224343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Avi G., Winter Y.: Monotonicity and collective quantification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12(2), 127–151 (2003). doi:10.1023/A:1022305918225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. W. (1973). Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(3), 275–343. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177775.

  • Buccola, B. (2015). Variable monotonicity and less than: when Van Benthem’s problem is not a problem. In T. Bui & D. Özyıldız (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the north east Linguistic Society (NELS 45) (Vol. 1, pp. 125–134). http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002512.

  • Buccola, B. (2016). Severing maximality from fewer than: Evidence from genericity. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002847.

  • Cable, S. (2010). Class notes on Manfred Krifka (1999): At least some Determiners aren’t Determiners. Class handout, proseminar on semantic theory, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://people.umass.edu/scable/LING720-FA10/Handouts/Krifka-1999.pdf.

  • Champollion, L. (2014). Distributivity, collectivity, and cumulativity. In L. Matthewson et al. (Eds.), Companion to semantics. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002133.

  • Champollion L.: Stratified reference: The common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement. Theoretical Linguistics, 41(3–4), 109–149 (2015). doi:10.1515/tl-2015-0008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champollion, L., & Krifka, M. (2015). Mereology. In M. Aloni & P. Dekker (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002099.

  • Chemla E., Bott L.: Processing inferences at the semantic/pragmatic frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition, 130(3), 380–396 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, V. (1996). Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Berlin: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Fox, D. (2007). Free Choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, chap. 4 (pp. 71–120). Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition series. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230210752.

  • Fox D., Hackl M.: The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(5), 537–586 (2006). doi:10.1007/s10988-006-9004-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski, J. (2003). On analyticity in natural language. Manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://www.gajewski.uconn.edu/papers/analytic.pdf.

  • Geurts, B. (2006). Take five: The meaning and use of a number word. In S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (Eds.), Non-definiteness and plurality (pp. 311–329). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/la.95.16geu.

  • Hackl, M. (2000). Comparative quantifiers. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory X (pp. 40–64). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. doi:10.3765/salt.v10i0.3102.

  • Heim, I. (2006). Little. In M. Gibson & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XVI (pp. 35–58). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. doi:10.3765/salt.v16i0.2941.

  • Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

  • Hilbert, D. (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Hoeksema, J. (1983). Plurality and conjunction. In A. ter Meulen (Ed.), Studies in modeltheoretic semantics. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

  • Horn, L. R. (2006). The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (Eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics (pp. 21–48). Oxford: Elsevier.

  • Johnson K.: Sluicing and constraints on quantifier scope. Glot International, 5, 217–221 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzir R.: Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 669–690 (2007). doi:10.1007/s10988-008-9029-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (1997). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. PhD thesis. University of California Santa Cruz.

  • Kennedy C.: A “de-Fregean” semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(10), 1–44 (2015). doi:10.3765/sp.8.10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, J.-P. (1991). Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. In Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Part 2: The Parasession on Negation (pp. 140–155).

  • Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions (pp. 75–115). Dordrecht: Foris. http://www.worldcat.org/title/semantics-and-contextual-expression/oclc/21675604.

  • Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (Vol. 1, pp. 257–291). Oxford: Elsevier.

  • Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD thesis. University of Texas, Austin.

  • Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the type of sets. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 303–323). Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Link, G. (1987). Generalized quantifiers and plurals. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches (pp. 151–180). Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Marty P., Chemla E., Spector B.: Interpreting numerals and scalar items undermemory load. Lingua, 133, 152–163 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marty P., Chemla E., Spector B.: Phantom readings: The case of modified numerals. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4), 462–477 (2015). doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.931592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musolino J.: The semantics and acquisition of number words: Integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition, 93(1), 1–41 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen, R. (2015). Plurality. In M. Aloni & P. Dekker (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DJkMTZlZ/nouwen-pluralitycambridge-handbook.pdf.

  • Papafragou A., Musolino J.: Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253–282 (2003). doi:110.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

  • Romero, M. (1998). Focus and reconstruction effects in Wh-Phrases. PhD thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the semantics of Wh-Constructions. PhD thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Sauerland, U. (2003). A new semantics for number. In R. B. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XIII. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. doi:10.3765/salt.v13i0.2898.

  • Scha, R. (1981). Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 483–517). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.

  • Schlenker P.: Informativity-based maximality conditions. Snippets, 26, 18–19 (2012). doi:10.7358/snip-2012-026-schl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, V. (2015). Scopelessness. Talk given at Institut Jean Nicod. Solt, S. (2007). Few and fewer. Snippets, 15, 8–9. http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/allegati/snippets15003.pdf.

  • Spector, B. (2007). Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, chap. 9 (pp. 243–281). Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition series. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230210752_9.

  • Spector B.: Bare numerals and scalar implicatures. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(5), 273–294 (2013) . doi:10.1111/lnc3.12018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, B. (2014). Plural indefinites and maximality. UCLA colloquium talk.

  • Van Benthem, J. (1986). Essays in logical semantics. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

  • Van der Does, J. (1992). Applied quantifier logics: Collectives, naked infinitives. PhD thesis. University of Amsterdam.

  • Van Eijk, J. (1983). Discourse representation theory and plurality. In A. ter Meulen (Ed.), Studies in model theoretic semantics (pp. 85–106). Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Verkuyl, H. J. (1981). Numerals and quantifiers in X-bar syntax and their semantic interpretation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 567–599). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.

  • von Fintel, K., Fox, D., & Iatridou, S. (2014). Definiteness as maximal informativeness. In L. Crnič & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 1, pp. 165–174). MITWPL 70. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jZiNmM4N/FintelFoxIatridou.pdf.

  • Winter, Y. (2001). Flexibility principles in boolean semantics: The interpretation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  • Zweig E.: Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(4), 353–407 (2009). doi:10.1007/s10988-009-9064-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Buccola.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buccola, B., Spector, B. Modified numerals and maximality. Linguist and Philos 39, 151–199 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9187-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9187-2

Keywords

Navigation