{"title":"带有数量名词的 DP 中的结构模糊性","authors":"Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Bernhard Schwarz","doi":"10.3765/dxn8d863","DOIUrl":null,"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":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Structural ambiguity in DPs with quantity nouns\",\"authors\":\"Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Bernhard Schwarz\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/dxn8d863\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Semantics and Linguistic Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/dxn8d863\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/dxn8d863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
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。
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.