This paper is devoted to an analysis of anaphoric dependencies in disjunctive sentences, and consequences for the understanding of the ∃/∀ ambiguity observed with donkey anaphora. The primary focus is on donkey disjunctions, which are sentences where a (negated) existential in an initial disjunct appears to bind a pronoun in a later disjunct, such as "Either there's no bathroom, or its upstairs". The main empirical focus is that donkey disjunctions, like donkey anaphora, exhibit the ∃/∀ ambiguity, and more generally oscillate between homogeneous and heterogeneous readings in a context-sensitive fashion. The paper then proceeds in two steps: first, a principled analysis of donkey disjunctions is developed in the context of a Bilateral Update Semantics (BUS). BUS, by default, generates heterogeneous readings for donkey anaphora/donkey disjunctions (i.e., ∃ readings, in a positive context). In order to account of homogeneous readings, the conjecture is that sentences may be interpreted exhaustively relative to their negations. This has non-trivial consequences due to the non-classicality of BUS — specifically, a failure of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
{"title":"Donkey disjunctions and overlapping updates","authors":"Patrick David Elliott","doi":"10.3765/v5jhc728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/v5jhc728","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is devoted to an analysis of anaphoric dependencies in disjunctive sentences, and consequences for the understanding of the ∃/∀ ambiguity observed with donkey anaphora. The primary focus is on donkey disjunctions, which are sentences where a (negated) existential in an initial disjunct appears to bind a pronoun in a later disjunct, such as \"Either there's no bathroom, or its upstairs\". The main empirical focus is that donkey disjunctions, like donkey anaphora, exhibit the ∃/∀ ambiguity, and more generally oscillate between homogeneous and heterogeneous readings in a context-sensitive fashion. The paper then proceeds in two steps: first, a principled analysis of donkey disjunctions is developed in the context of a Bilateral Update Semantics (BUS). BUS, by default, generates heterogeneous readings for donkey anaphora/donkey disjunctions (i.e., ∃ readings, in a positive context). In order to account of homogeneous readings, the conjecture is that sentences may be interpreted exhaustively relative to their negations. This has non-trivial consequences due to the non-classicality of BUS — specifically, a failure of the Law of Non-Contradiction.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"48 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139805809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In uttering a subjective opinion like Donuts are tasty, is a speaker expressing her own opinion or also making a generalization about people-in-general? While researchers largely agree that generic readings of subjective predicates exist, there is no consensus on how central genericity is for theories of subjective meaning. We report a psycholinguistic study that tests what influences the level of prevalence that comprehenders attribute to opinions, expressed with subjective predicates, about unfamiliar information. Specifically, if you overhear an alien expressing an opinion about an unfamiliar virus (e.g. The zorgavirus is dangerous), how many other aliens do you think share this alien's opinion? We find that the perceived generalizability of subjective predicates is modulated by the presence/absence of embedding under propositional attitude verbs (whether the speaker is explicitly mentioned with I think/consider) and by participants' extra-linguistic attitudes, namely their anxiety levels about COVID. This work uncovers a new link between subjective predicates and humans’ egocentric cognitive biases.
在说出 "甜甜圈很好吃 "这样的主观意见时，说话者是在表达自己的意见，还是在对一般人进行概括？虽然研究人员基本同意主观谓词存在泛指解读，但对于泛指在主观意义理论中的核心地位，却没有达成共识。我们报告了一项心理语言学研究，该研究测试了是什么影响了理解者对用主观谓词表达的关于陌生信息的观点的普遍性程度。具体来说，如果您无意中听到一个外星人表达了对一种陌生病毒的看法（例如，zorgavirus 是危险的），您认为有多少其他外星人会赞同这个外星人的看法？我们发现，主观谓词的可感知泛化性受命题态度动词下嵌入的有无（是否明确提到说话者的 I think/consider）和参与者的语言外态度（即他们对 COVID 的焦虑程度）的影响。这项研究发现了主观谓词与人类以自我为中心的认知偏差之间的新联系。
{"title":"Generality, genericity and subjective predicates: What propositional attitude verbs, alien viruses, and COVID can tell us","authors":"Elsi M Kaiser, Haley Hsu","doi":"10.3765/v84pje42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/v84pje42","url":null,"abstract":"In uttering a subjective opinion like Donuts are tasty, is a speaker expressing her own opinion or also making a generalization about people-in-general? While researchers largely agree that generic readings of subjective predicates exist, there is no consensus on how central genericity is for theories of subjective meaning. We report a psycholinguistic study that tests what influences the level of prevalence that comprehenders attribute to opinions, expressed with subjective predicates, about unfamiliar information. Specifically, if you overhear an alien expressing an opinion about an unfamiliar virus (e.g. The zorgavirus is dangerous), how many other aliens do you think share this alien's opinion? We find that the perceived generalizability of subjective predicates is modulated by the presence/absence of embedding under propositional attitude verbs (whether the speaker is explicitly mentioned with I think/consider) and by participants' extra-linguistic attitudes, namely their anxiety levels about COVID. This work uncovers a new link between subjective predicates and humans’ egocentric cognitive biases.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"9 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139803955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
By default, only (p) presupposes the ‘prejacent’ p, as predicted by the classical analysis in Horn 1969. Yet, in some cases, only (p) instead presupposes a weaker existential claim that some alternative is true (e.g. Klinedinst 2005). What is the mechanism by which the presupposition of only is weakened? Crniˇc (2022) takes the presupposition of only to involve quantification, and derives weakening from domain restriction. We present a challenge to this approach, and offer an alternative. In Alonso-Ovalle & Hirsch 2022, we proposed that the grammar makes available a covert operator, which can occur in the complement of only, weakening its argument. We show that this approach offers a straightforward analysis of cases where the presupposition of only is weakened to existential.
{"title":"Weakening is external to only","authors":"Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Aron Hirsch","doi":"10.3765/w42dk446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/w42dk446","url":null,"abstract":"By default, only (p) presupposes the ‘prejacent’ p, as predicted by the classical analysis in Horn 1969. Yet, in some cases, only (p) instead presupposes a weaker existential claim that some alternative is true (e.g. Klinedinst 2005). What is the mechanism by which the presupposition of only is weakened? Crniˇc (2022) takes the presupposition of only to involve quantification, and derives weakening from domain restriction. We present a challenge to this approach, and offer an alternative. In Alonso-Ovalle & Hirsch 2022, we proposed that the grammar makes available a covert operator, which can occur in the complement of only, weakening its argument. We show that this approach offers a straightforward analysis of cases where the presupposition of only is weakened to existential.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"87 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139601899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We propose a redundancy-based solution to the puzzle of Hurford con- ditionals. We argue that the puzzle goes away once we recognise that negated and unnegated Hurford disjunctions are not on par. We develop a theory, dubbed super-redundancy, that captures this contrast, and investigate how it can be paired with different approaches to conditionals. It turns out that under super-redundancy, the Hurford conditional paradigm follows under the material implication and strict semantics approaches to conditionals, but not under the variably strict semantics. Finally, we extend our theory to capture some puzzling cases of Hurford phenom- ena that have recently received attention in Marty & Romoli (2022).
{"title":"An approach to Hurford Conditionals","authors":"Alexandros Kalomoiros","doi":"10.3765/68bn3095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/68bn3095","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000\u0000\u0000We propose a redundancy-based solution to the puzzle of Hurford con- ditionals. We argue that the puzzle goes away once we recognise that negated and unnegated Hurford disjunctions are not on par. We develop a theory, dubbed super-redundancy, that captures this contrast, and investigate how it can be paired with different approaches to conditionals. It turns out that under super-redundancy, the Hurford conditional paradigm follows under the material implication and strict semantics approaches to conditionals, but not under the variably strict semantics. Finally, we extend our theory to capture some puzzling cases of Hurford phenom- ena that have recently received attention in Marty & Romoli (2022).\u0000\u0000\u0000","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"53 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139603462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper deals with an unexpected contrast between demonstrative descriptions and definite descriptions on their anaphoric uses. If two (or more) discourse referents are introduced in the preceding sentence, it is perfectly natural to refer to one of them in the following sentence using a definite description. Use of demonstrative descriptions in the same context, however, is degraded, with existing accounts of anaphoric demonstratives and definites providing no explanation for this contrast. We present experimental evidence from two languages, one with definite determiners (English) and one without (Turkish), and show that the acceptability of demonstratives depends independently both on (i) whether one or two NPs are introduced in the initial sentence, and (ii) whether the follow-up sentence introduces a new situation or not. We propose a focus-driven information structural approach to demonstratives to account for this pattern. Following Dayal & Jiang (2021) (building on Schwarz 2009) in assuming that definite and demonstrative expressions in anaphoric contexts are similar in including an anaphoric index argument, we argue that demonstratives essentially differ in evoking focus alternatives on the index argument.
{"title":"Focus on demonstratives: Experiments in English and Turkish","authors":"Ankana Saha, Yağmur Sağ, Kathryn Davidson","doi":"10.3765/48a57s28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/48a57s28","url":null,"abstract":"This paper deals with an unexpected contrast between demonstrative descriptions and definite descriptions on their anaphoric uses. If two (or more) discourse referents are introduced in the preceding sentence, it is perfectly natural to refer to one of them in the following sentence using a definite description. Use of demonstrative descriptions in the same context, however, is degraded, with existing accounts of anaphoric demonstratives and definites providing no explanation for this contrast. We present experimental evidence from two languages, one with definite determiners (English) and one without (Turkish), and show that the acceptability of demonstratives depends independently both on (i) whether one or two NPs are introduced in the initial sentence, and (ii) whether the follow-up sentence introduces a new situation or not. We propose a focus-driven information structural approach to demonstratives to account for this pattern. Following Dayal & Jiang (2021) (building on Schwarz 2009) in assuming that definite and demonstrative expressions in anaphoric contexts are similar in including an anaphoric index argument, we argue that demonstratives essentially differ in evoking focus alternatives on the index argument.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"125 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139605055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bumford (2015) argues that universal quantification in dynamic semantics should be analyzed as generalized dynamic conjunction for empirical benefits. However, this analysis is incompatible with the existing telescoping analyses, which use a pluralized dynamic system (van den Berg 1996; Nouwen 2003; Brasoveanu 2007: a.o.). This study aims to resolve this conflict. It is proposed that quantification over events and their participants allows us to account for telescoping without the pluralized dynamic system.
Bumford（2015）认为，动态语义学中的普遍量化应被分析为广义动态连词，以获得实证上的好处。然而，这种分析与现有的伸缩分析不相容，后者使用的是复数化动态系统（van den Berg 1996; Nouwen 2003; Brasoveanu 2007: a.o.）。本研究旨在解决这一矛盾。本研究建议，对事件及其参与者进行量化，使我们能够在不使用复数化动态系统的情况下对伸缩进行解释。
{"title":"Telescoping in incremental quantification","authors":"Yusuke Yagi","doi":"10.3765/xeccvd70","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/xeccvd70","url":null,"abstract":"Bumford (2015) argues that universal quantification in dynamic semantics should be analyzed as generalized dynamic conjunction for empirical benefits. However, this analysis is incompatible with the existing telescoping analyses, which use a pluralized dynamic system (van den Berg 1996; Nouwen 2003; Brasoveanu 2007: a.o.). This study aims to resolve this conflict. It is proposed that quantification over events and their participants allows us to account for telescoping without the pluralized dynamic system.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"43 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139604230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, I evaluate two ways to model the notion of live possibilities: the supervaluation-based approach, and the alternative-based approach. I argue that the alternative-based approach is more promising in fulfilling certain desirable constraints governing live possibilities. However, the existing alternative-based accounts fail to be fully satisfactory. To address this inadequacy, I devise a new alternative-based framework and explore its logical features.
{"title":"On the modeling of live possibilities","authors":"Yichi Zhang","doi":"10.3765/aysk3v43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/aysk3v43","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I evaluate two ways to model the notion of live possibilities: the supervaluation-based approach, and the alternative-based approach. I argue that the alternative-based approach is more promising in fulfilling certain desirable constraints governing live possibilities. However, the existing alternative-based accounts fail to be fully satisfactory. To address this inadequacy, I devise a new alternative-based framework and explore its logical features.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"110 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139605714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nominals can be used to refer to or quantify over individuals, while clauses convey propositional content, with the exception of set-denoting restrictive headed relative clauses. This well-attested crosslinguistic syntax/semantics mapping needs to be broadened. Recent crosslinguistic findings show that headless relative clauses—embedded argument or adjunct clauses with a missing constituent—are widely attested and are used to refer to or quantify over individuals, similar to nominals. The present work contributes to the investigation of the syntax/semantics interface of different varieties of headless relative clauses and begins to develop a much-needed close comparison with the syntax/semantics interface of nominals in order to establish which principles are at play in both families of constructions.
{"title":"Referring and quantifying without nominals: headless relative clauses across languages","authors":"Ivano Caponigro","doi":"10.3765/3dgvfv89","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/3dgvfv89","url":null,"abstract":"Nominals can be used to refer to or quantify over individuals, while clauses convey propositional content, with the exception of set-denoting restrictive headed relative clauses. This well-attested crosslinguistic syntax/semantics mapping needs to be broadened. Recent crosslinguistic findings show that headless relative clauses—embedded argument or adjunct clauses with a missing constituent—are widely attested and are used to refer to or quantify over individuals, similar to nominals. The present work contributes to the investigation of the syntax/semantics interface of different varieties of headless relative clauses and begins to develop a much-needed close comparison with the syntax/semantics interface of nominals in order to establish which principles are at play in both families of constructions.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"21 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139607168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since at least Vendler 1967, one of the most widely discussed data points, often viewed as the ultimate test for (a)telicity, is the behavior of durative modifiers with respect to different VP types as in John killed mosquitos/*a mosquito for an hour. In the present paper, I explore a new blend of the two most widespread approaches to this issue, namely (i) the view of durative modifiers as universal quantifiers (e.g., Dowty 1979, a.o.) and (ii) their view as aspect sensitive measure adverbials (e.g., Krifka 1998, a.o.). The blend explored here is based on an economy constraint specific to the scope of adverbial quantification (‘do not weaken’ cf. Bassa Vanrell 2017) combined with the identification of the special role that kinds and properties may play as direct bearers of thematic relations in an event-based semantics.
至少从 1967 年的 Vendler 开始，讨论最广泛的数据点之一，通常被视为(a)终结性的最终检验标准，就是持续修饰语在不同 VP 类型中的行为，如 John killed mosquitos/*a mosquito for an hour。在本文中，我探讨了处理这一问题的两种最普遍方法的新融合，即：(i) 把持续修饰语看作通用量词（如 Dowty 1979, a.o.）；(ii) 把它们看作对方面敏感的量词副词（如 Krifka 1998, a.o.）。 这里探讨的混合是基于副词量化范围特有的经济约束（"不要削弱"，参见 Bassa Vanrell 2017），并结合种类和属性在基于事件的语义学中作为主题关系的直接承载者可能扮演的特殊角色。
{"title":"Kinds, properties and atelicity","authors":"Gennaro Chierchia","doi":"10.3765/q4xap035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/q4xap035","url":null,"abstract":"Since at least Vendler 1967, one of the most widely discussed data points, often viewed as the ultimate test for (a)telicity, is the behavior of durative modifiers with respect to different VP types as in John killed mosquitos/*a mosquito for an hour. In the present paper, I explore a new blend of the two most widespread approaches to this issue, namely (i) the view of durative modifiers as universal quantifiers (e.g., Dowty 1979, a.o.) and (ii) their view as aspect sensitive measure adverbials (e.g., Krifka 1998, a.o.). The blend explored here is based on an economy constraint specific to the scope of adverbial quantification (‘do not weaken’ cf. Bassa Vanrell 2017) combined with the identification of the special role that kinds and properties may play as direct bearers of thematic relations in an event-based semantics.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"18 13","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139608165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
DPs with quantity nouns (QDPs), like that amount of nuts, can combine with predicates of quantities, as in That amount of nuts is low, or with predicates of entities, as in Bo ate that amount of nuts. One account of such selectional flexibility, inspired by Selkirk (1977) and Rothstein (2009), assumes that the two types of predication are transparently encoded through two types of syntactic structures. In this paper, we draw attention to a syntactic challenge for this account of QDPs, viz.that in certain cases it requires two interpreted occurrences of an entity noun like nuts even though only one is pronounced. We argue, however, that this challenge mustbe met and cannot be avoided by abandoning the structural approach. We make this case by arguing against an alternative analysis of the selectional flexibility of QDPs developed in Scontras 2017. On this alternative, quantity predication and entity predication with QDPs are derived from a uniform syntax, and entity predication with QDPs parallels entity predication with DPs with kind, like that kind of nuts, under the classic Carlsonian account (Carlson 1977) as developed in Chierchia 1998. We argue that Scontras’ analysis is mistaken, both in positing a unified syntax for the two types of predication with QDPs, and in unifying the analysis of QDPs withthe Carlsonian analysis of kind-DPs.
带有数量名词（QDPs）的 DPs，如 that amount of nuts，可以与数量谓词结合，如 That amount of nuts is low，也可以与实体谓词结合，如 Bo ate that amount of nuts。受塞尔柯克（Selkirk，1977 年）和罗斯坦（Rothstein，2009 年）的启发，对这种选择灵活性的一种解释假定两种类型的谓词通过两种类型的句法结构透明地编码。在本文中，我们提请注意这种 QDP 解释在句法上面临的挑战，即在某些情况下，它要求像 nuts 这样的实体名词出现两次解释，即使只有一次发音。然而，我们认为必须应对这一挑战，而不能通过放弃结构方法来避免这一挑战。我们通过反驳 Scontras 2017 中对 QDPs 选择灵活性的另一种分析来证明这一点。在这一替代分析中，数量谓词和带有 QDPs 的实体谓词都来自统一的语法，而带有 QDPs 的实体谓词与带有种类 DPs 的实体谓词相似，如 Chierchia 1998 中发展的经典卡尔森账户（Carlson 1977）中的那种坚果。我们认为斯康特拉斯的分析是错误的，因为他为这两种带 QDPs 的谓词假定了统一的语法，并且把对 QDPs 的分析与卡尔森对种类-DPs 的分析统一起来了。
{"title":"Structural ambiguity in DPs with quantity nouns","authors":"Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Bernhard Schwarz","doi":"10.3765/dxn8d863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3765/dxn8d863","url":null,"abstract":"DPs with quantity nouns (QDPs), like that amount of nuts, can combine with predicates of quantities, as in That amount of nuts is low, or with predicates of entities, as in Bo ate that amount of nuts. One account of such selectional flexibility, inspired by Selkirk (1977) and Rothstein (2009), assumes that the two types of predication are transparently encoded through two types of syntactic structures. In this paper, we draw attention to a syntactic challenge for this account of QDPs, viz.that in certain cases it requires two interpreted occurrences of an entity noun like nuts even though only one is pronounced. We argue, however, that this challenge mustbe met and cannot be avoided by abandoning the structural approach. We make this case by arguing against an alternative analysis of the selectional flexibility of QDPs developed in Scontras 2017. On this alternative, quantity predication and entity predication with QDPs are derived from a uniform syntax, and entity predication with QDPs parallels entity predication with DPs with kind, like that kind of nuts, under the classic Carlsonian account (Carlson 1977) as developed in Chierchia 1998. We argue that Scontras’ analysis is mistaken, both in positing a unified syntax for the two types of predication with QDPs, and in unifying the analysis of QDPs withthe Carlsonian analysis of kind-DPs.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"76 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139606399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：