The Semantics of Event-Related Readings: A Case for Pair-Quantification

Doetjes, Jenny; Honcoop, Martin

doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_8

Cited by 31 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike a non‐DEKE numeral in a DP, a numeral DEKE may not scope over negation (cf. Doetjes & Honcoop 1997:298), as seen in (21). The non‐negative requirement for numeral DEKE constructions is discussed in Doetjes & Honcoop (1997), but they do not link the requirement to event kinds.…”

Section: Event‐kind Predicates Surfacing Inside a Dp Of Another Predi...mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For a numeral DEKE, it has been claimed in the literature that the number must be a large one, such as 4000. Barker (1999:689; also Doetjes & Honcoop 1997:267) claims that a numeral DEKE construction is used when “there are too many individuals to keep track of easily, in which the individuals involved are so similar that they are difficult to distinguish, or in which events are typically widely separated in time from each other or from the utterance time.” It is true that a numeral DEKE is used when the relevant individuals are difficult to distinguish, but the number of the individuals does not have to be many. For example, (20a), where a very low number occurs, allows an event counting reading if the speaker does not know the identity of the people: it is possible for the same person to visited twice (I thank James Myers for this example).…”

Section: Event‐kind Predicates Surfacing Inside a Dp Of Another Predi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, (20a), where a very low number occurs, allows an event counting reading if the speaker does not know the identity of the people: it is possible for the same person to visited twice (I thank James Myers for this example). Also, Doetjes & Honcoop (1997:267) report that the low number 20 in (20b) also allows a DEKE reading if the students to be examined come from three classes with overlapping enrollment. We thus agree with an anonymous reviewer: the above large numeral hypothesis can be challenged.…”

Section: Event‐kind Predicates Surfacing Inside a Dp Of Another Predi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Kind‐Level Predicates of Events Inside Another Predication☆

Zhang

2021

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kind level predicates of events such as three times, the third time, and occasionally can occur as a predicate of an independent predication, or appear as an adverbial, with an event kind‐denoting expression as their argument. The reduced forms of such predicates can surface inside a nominal of another predication, e.g., Four thousand ships passed through the lock last year; Susi bought a second guitar, and An occasional sailor strolled by. This paper argues that these predicates are displaced from their base‐positions so that an event kind‐denoting expression in the verbal category can be merged as the subject in the event‐kind predication. The proposed overt movement displaces the categorial features of an expression, leaving its semantic features in situ, an operation symmetrical to a covert movement, which displaces the semantic features without categorial features.

show abstract

Section: Event‐kind Predicates Surfacing Inside a Dp Of Another Predi...mentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Event‐kind Predicates Surfacing Inside a Dp Of Another Predi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Event‐kind Predicates Surfacing Inside a Dp Of Another Predi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kind‐Level Predicates of Events Inside Another Predication☆

Zhang

2021

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore the per-event reading is contributed by some semantic or pragmatic factor independent of the noun itself. (Deciding how best to account for the per-event reading is quite challenging; see Krifka 1990, Musan 1997, Doetjes and Honcoop 1997, and Barker 1999 If per-event readings are available for nouns such as ship, the simplest analysis is that whatever mechanism provides the per-event interpretation for ship also provides the per-event interpretation for nouns like passenger and batter. If so, two predictions follow.…”

Section: Arguments Against Nominal Criteria Of Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nominals don’t provide criteria of identity

Barker¹

2010

The Semantics of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Or else maybe they are all the selfsame electron. In 1948 John Archibald Wheeler, in a telephone conversation with his student Richard Feynman, proposed the delightful hypothesis that there is just one electron in the universe. The single particle shuttles forward and backward in time, weaving a fabulously tangled "world line." At each point where the particle's world line crosses the spacetime plane that we perceive as "now," it appears to us as an electron if it is moving forward in time and as a positron if it is going backward. The sum of all these appearances constructs the material universe. And that's why all electrons have the same mass and charge: because they are all the same electron, always equal to itself.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, I only became aware of Doetjes and Honcoop 1997 in the final stage of revision. In the course of extending and revising Krifka's (1990) analysis, Doetjes and Honcoop conclude that the many-to-one reading involves quantification over ordered pairs consisting of an individual and an event, a result that is strikingly similar to the position advocated here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%