Quantificational Structures and Compositionality

Partee, Barbara H.

doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0321-3_17

Cited by 35 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A further development in this approach has been the attempt to understand the intraction of information structure partitioning and quantificational structure, as in Partee (1992Partee ( , 1995 and Bach et al (1987). The main thrust behind this connection is to understand how topic/focus determines the projection of material onto a tripartite structure.…”

Section: D-quantification Vs A-quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It resorts to the main divide proposed in Bach et al (1995), namely quantification expressed in the nominal domain by the determiner system vs. quantification conveyed through other means like adverbials or affixes (D-vs. Aquantification, see below for details). Following Heim (1982) and Partee (1992Partee ( , 1995, tripartite structures are taken as the unifying generalization across those two types of quantifying strategies in natural language.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, semantics is the least well-known area of SL grammars, let alone from a formal semantics perspective. 1 This applies to the grammar of quantification, as well, with the exception of Partee (1995) and Petronio (1995) on ASL. The present paper aligns with those two works in two senses:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quantificational Strategies across Language Modalities

Quer

2012

Logic, Language and Meaning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The study of quantification traditionally focused on structures where quantificational meanings are encoded in determiners. Only as a later development attention was paid to quantificational strategies that rely on adverbs, or affixes. In this paper I discuss three varieties of quantificational strategies attested in two sign languages (ASL and LSC) and argue that even the apparent instances of determiner quantification in those languages make use of the more "constructional" way of encoding quantificational meanings that partially reflect the mapping onto tripartite structures overtly. Further, lexical quantification is addressed in the domain of distributivity.

show abstract

Section: D-quantification Vs A-quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantificational Strategies across Language Modalities

Quer

2012

Logic, Language and Meaning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…is the denotation of the whole clause minus the Q-adverb (see Rooth 1985, Chierchia 1995a, Krifka 1995, Partee 1995and Herburger 2000cf. von Fintel 1994and Beaver and Clark 2003 for a slightly different approach).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantificational Variability Effects with Plural Definites: Quantification over Individuals or Situations?

Ebert

Hinterwimmer²

2010

Journal of Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we compare the behaviour of adverbs of frequency (de Swart 1993) like usually with the behaviour of adverbs of quantity like for the most part in sentences that contain plural definites. We show that sentences containing the former type of Q-adverb evidence that Quantificational Variability Effects (Berman 1991) come about as an indirect effect of quantification over situations: in order for quantificational variability readings to arise, these sentences have to obey two newly observed constraints that clearly set them apart from sentences containing corresponding quantificational DPs, and that can plausibly be explained under the assumption that quantification over (the atomic parts of) complex situations is involved. Concerning sentences with the latter type of Q-adverb, on the other hand, such evidence is lacking: with respect to the constraints just mentioned, they behave like sentences that contain corresponding quantificational DPs. We take this as evidence that Q-adverbs like for the most part do not quantify over the atomic parts of sum eventualities in the cases under discussion (as claimed by Nakanishi and Romero (2004)), but rather over the atomic parts of the respective sum individuals.

show abstract

“…However, (28b) does not fit such typical patterns: Here, we have the generic quantifier GEN, an A-quantifier, whose restriction is formed with the ILP 'teacher', and yet the quantification does not concern individuals, that is, a set of teachers, but rather a set of individual situations in which it is true of a single individual that he is a teacher. Given that A-quantifiers constitute a large and heteregeneous class with respect to their formal expression, potential to function as selective or unselective binders, it may not be surprising that they also differ from one another with respect to their range and how what they quantify over is determined (see Partee 1991bPartee , 1995. Among the factors that are implicated here are the overt phrase structure, the topic/focus structure, the presence of an ILP or a SLP in their restrictive clause, and we may also add the type of an ILP in the restriction (see the previous paragraph).…”

Section: Restrictors In a Quantificational Structure Of Sentencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Semantics of Case in Russian Secondary Predication

Filip¹

2001

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Secondary predicates in Russian are in the instrumental case (INST), or they agree in case (AGR) with their controlling argument in the main clause. The selection of case morphology depends on a complex interaction of a number of factors. 1 Here, the focus is only on semantic factors that have direct theoretical implications for the individual-level predicate (ILP) vs. stage-level predicate (SLP) distinction. I analyze the semantic constraints on ILPs used as depictives, situation anchors, and restrictors in sentences expressing quantification over situations, that is, in contexts in which they appear to have SL interpretations. I will advance three main claims: First, ILPs in Russian do not here undergo a shift into SLPs, but rather retain their inherent IL status. Second, case morphology on Russian predicates does not encode the IL and SL status of predicates. Third, the ILP-SLP distinction cannot be temporally-based, as Carlson (1977) originally proposed. My exploration of this topic involves the interactions among morphological case, the situation-related structure and the quantificational structure of sentences.

show abstract

Quantificational Structures and Compositionality

Cited by 35 publications

References 46 publications

Quantificational Strategies across Language Modalities

Quantificational Strategies across Language Modalities

Quantificational Variability Effects with Plural Definites: Quantification over Individuals or Situations?

The Semantics of Case in Russian Secondary Predication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About