On Comparative Quantification in the Verbal Domain

Nakanishi, Kimiko

doi:10.3765/salt.v0i0.2912

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…can be found in section ?? and in Nakanishi 2004b,a, Morzycki 2005, 2009b, 2012b, Nakanishi 2007, Kennedy & Levin 2008, Rett 2008b 2012, Anderson to appearb).…”

Section: Borderline Cases and Context-dependencementioning

confidence: 97%

Vagueness, degrees, and gradable predicates

Morzycki

2015

Modification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full manuscript is also available as a single document on my website, as are some additional chapters. The book is something between a textbook for people who already have a basic background in semantics and a survey of work in the area. For a fuller explanation of its purpose and scope, consult chapter 1 in the full manuscript. Broken links, marked with ??, are to other chapters not included in this document. (You can avoid this by looking at the full manuscript.) Comments would be extremely helpful, so please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any, even very minor ones.

show abstract

“…can be found in section ?? and in Nakanishi 2004b,a, Morzycki 2005, 2009b, 2012b, Nakanishi 2007, Kennedy & Levin 2008, Rett 2008b 2012, Anderson to appearb).…”

Section: Borderline Cases and Context-dependencementioning

confidence: 97%

Vagueness, degrees, and gradable predicates

Morzycki

2015

Modification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Degree semanticists have tried to capture this linguistic phenomenon by using a particular semantic constraint. That is, the semantic value of "much" is restricted to upward monotone measure functions (Nakanishi, 2004(Nakanishi, , 2007Schwarzschild, 2002Schwarzschild, , 2006Wellwood, 2019). To summarize, GEN and "much" are both a kind of pronoun and they carry the upward monotonicity constraint.…”

Section: Gen As the Default Mode Of Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s positive and negative about generics: a constrained indexical approach

Lee

Nguyen

2021

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generics, which are often expressed using bare plurals (e.g., "Tigers are striped"), have received much attention from both philosophers and linguists. 1 But generics have proved resistant to systematic semantic theorizing. This is mainly because generics can be used to express propositions with radically different quantificational forces: that of universal quantifiers (e.g., "all"), modalized universal quantifiers (e.g., "all … can," "ideally, all," "under normal circumstances, all"), proportional quantifiers (e.g., "most," "many"), and quasi-existential quantifiers (e.g., "a few"). Nguyen (2020) calls this data The Variety Data, but we prefer to call it The Positive Data: 2The Positive Data (The Variety Data) 3,4 (1) [A few] mosquitoes transmit malaria. 51 For broad introductions to the literature on generics, see Krifka et al. (1995), Leslie (2016), and Sterken (2017). 2 In the absence of an explicitly supplied context, we will assume typical contexts. Bach (2002) and Bach (2005) have argued that in the absence of an explicitly provided context, speakers evaluate sentences by imagining a typical one. Some evidence that speakers can automatically supply a typical context is the felicity of some sentences containing context-dependent expressions despite the absence of any explicitly offered context. For example, "She left Bob" can be understood as meaning "Bob's female ex-partner left Bob" despite the lack of any explicitly offered context to help resolve the reference of "she." 3 Only the unbracketed material is overtly pronounced. The bracketed material indicates the quantificational force of what is asserted. 4 Here are sample lexical entries for the quantifiers in the positive data: ⟦"all"⟧ c = λF. λG.

show abstract

“…The close relationship between quantity in the nominal domain and verbal gradability of the sort in (12b, c) is explored further by Nakanishi (, , ), Wellwood (), Wellwood et al (), who propose analyses based on the idea that measure functions can apply both to individuals and to events, in the latter case measuring either the event directly or an entity related to the event (cf. Krifka ).…”

Section: Scales Across Language(s)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Scales in Natural Language

Solt

2015

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The meaning of a wide variety of natural language expressions can be stated in terms of degrees on scales. This paper provides an overview of the contribution of scales to linguistic meaning. I discuss the ontology of scales, survey the role of scalarity within and across languages, and summarize recent research into the linguistically relevant features of scales, organizing these findings into a preliminary framework for a comprehensive model of scale structure. The relation between the scales underlying the interpretation of gradable expressions and those involved in the calculation of scalar implicatures – so‐called Horn scales – is also briefly discussed.

show abstract

On Comparative Quantification in the Verbal Domain

Abstract: No abstract.

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Vagueness, degrees, and gradable predicates

Vagueness, degrees, and gradable predicates

What’s positive and negative about generics: a constrained indexical approach

Measurement Scales in Natural Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About