The Case of Bare Plurals and Plural Definites. - Institut für Linguistik ...
The Case of Bare Plurals and Plural Definites. - Institut für Linguistik ...
The Case of Bare Plurals and Plural Definites. - Institut für Linguistik ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Quantification over Events:<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Case</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>.<br />
Cornelia Endriss<br />
endriss@rz.uni-potsdam.de<br />
Stefan Hinterwimmer<br />
stefan.hinterwimmer@rz.hu-berlin.de<br />
SFB 632<br />
<strong>Institut</strong> <strong>für</strong> <strong>Linguistik</strong><br />
Universität Potsdam<br />
SFB 632<br />
<strong>Institut</strong> <strong>für</strong> dt. Sprache und <strong>Linguistik</strong><br />
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Claims<br />
• Quantificational variability (QV)-readings available<br />
in adverbially quantified sentences with singular<br />
indefinites as well as with bare plurals <strong>and</strong> plural<br />
definites.<br />
• Q-adverbs exclusively quantify over (sets <strong>of</strong>)<br />
eventualities.<br />
• <strong>The</strong>re are constraints for the availability <strong>of</strong> QVreadings<br />
with plural definites <strong>and</strong> singular<br />
indefinites.<br />
• <strong>The</strong>se come about because eventualities need to<br />
be located in a salient time interval.<br />
• <strong>The</strong>re is a pragmatic strategy by which this interval<br />
is determined: the Interval Resolution Strategy<br />
(IRS).<br />
• No such constraints for the availability <strong>of</strong> QVreadings<br />
with bare plurals.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Outline<br />
• Data<br />
• QV-strategies:<br />
- With Singular Indefinites<br />
- With <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
- With <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Constraints for the Availability <strong>of</strong> QV-Readings:<br />
- Tense Agreement ⇒ Interval Resolution Strategy<br />
(IRS):<br />
- For Singular Indefinites<br />
- For <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
- Coincidence Constraint:<br />
- For <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Explanation for Non-Restriction <strong>of</strong> QV with<br />
<strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Data: Quantificational Variability<br />
• Not only singular indefinites <strong>and</strong> bare plurals, but also<br />
plural definites get QV-readings:<br />
(1) A biologist is usually open-minded.<br />
(Most biologist are open-minded.)<br />
(2) Biologists are usually open-minded.<br />
(Most biologist are open-minded.)<br />
(3) <strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the<br />
conference last summer were usually open-minded.<br />
(Most biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the<br />
conference last summer are open-minded.)<br />
(4) *<strong>The</strong> biologists (over there) are usually open-minded.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Data: Singular Indefinites<br />
• In sentences with singular indefinites, the tense<br />
markings <strong>of</strong> the relative clause verbs <strong>and</strong> the matrix<br />
verbs have to agree:<br />
(5)<br />
??<br />
A car that was bought in the eighties is usually blue.<br />
(6) A car that was bought in the eighties was usually blue.<br />
(7) Most cars that were bought in the eighties are blue.<br />
• If Q-adverbs were unselective binders, the<br />
acceptability difference between (5) <strong>and</strong> (6) as well as<br />
between (5) <strong>and</strong> (7) cannot be accounted for.<br />
• Q-adverbs unambiguously quantify over eventuality<br />
variables.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Data: <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Also with plural definites, the tense markings<br />
<strong>of</strong> the relative clause verbs <strong>and</strong> the matrix<br />
verbs have to agree :<br />
(3) <strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at<br />
the conference last summer were usually<br />
open-minded.<br />
(8) *<strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at<br />
the conference last summer are usually openminded.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Data: <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Additional constraint in case <strong>of</strong> plural definites:<br />
(9) *<strong>The</strong> biologists that listened to Peter’s talk on<br />
kangaroo tails at the conference last summer were<br />
usually open-minded.<br />
(10) <strong>The</strong> people Peter met yesterday were usually friendly.<br />
• (9) is out though the tense marking <strong>of</strong> the relative<br />
clause verb <strong>and</strong> the matrix verb agree.<br />
• In (9), all atomic listening events necessarily<br />
temporally coincide (on Peter‘s lecture).<br />
• (10) only gets a QV-reading in a situation where Peter<br />
met the respective people one by one at different<br />
situations <strong>and</strong> not all at once.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Data: <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
• No constraints for sentences with bare<br />
plurals:<br />
(11) Biologists that lectured on kangaroos in the<br />
eighties are usually open-minded.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Outline<br />
• Data<br />
• QV-strategies:<br />
- With Singular Indefinites<br />
- With <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
- With <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Constraints for the Availability <strong>of</strong> QV-Readings:<br />
- Tense Agreement ⇒ Interval Resolution Strategy<br />
(IRS):<br />
- For Singular Indefinites<br />
- For <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
- Coincidence Constraint:<br />
- For <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Explanation for Non-Restriction <strong>of</strong> QV with<br />
<strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
QV with Singular Indefinites<br />
• Q-adverbs quantify over sets <strong>of</strong><br />
eventualities/situations (cf. Berman (1989),<br />
de Swart (1993), von Fintel (1994),<br />
Herburger (2000)).<br />
• Indefinites are interpreted as Generalized<br />
Quantifiers with existential force.<br />
• Non-focal/topical material is mapped onto the<br />
restriction <strong>of</strong> Q-adverbs (cf. Rooth (1985),<br />
Chierchia (1995), Krifka (1995), Partee<br />
(1995)).<br />
→ Indefinite DPs are mapped onto the<br />
restriction <strong>of</strong> Q-adverbs if they are deaccented.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
QV with Singular Indefinites<br />
• QV comes about because the Q-adverb binds<br />
(minimal) situations that contain just one<br />
individual <strong>of</strong> the relevant sort (cf. Berman<br />
(1989), de Swart (1993), von Fintel (1994),<br />
Herburger (2000)).<br />
• Accordingly, (1) is interpreted as in (12):<br />
(1) A biologist is usually open-minded.<br />
(12) Most e [∃x. arg(e,x) ∧ biologist(x)]<br />
[open_minded(e)]<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
QV with <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
• <strong>Bare</strong> plurals in English denote kinds (Carlson (1977),<br />
Krifka et al. (1995), Chierchia (1998), Dayal (2003)).<br />
• Kinds are nothing but sum individuals <strong>of</strong> a special sort<br />
(Chierchia (1998), Dayal (2003)):<br />
• A covert version <strong>of</strong> the σ-operator (Link (1983)) is<br />
applied to a set that contains (atomic as well as<br />
plural) individuals that fulfil the respective predicate<br />
not only in the actual world, but also in other<br />
possible worlds.<br />
• If bare plurals are combined with non-kind-level<br />
predicates, existential quantification over instances <strong>of</strong><br />
the respective kind (realizations, cf. Krifka et al.<br />
(1995)) is triggered.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> instances picked out by the existential quantifier<br />
vary with the eventualities quantified over by the Q-<br />
adverb (as in the sentences with singular indefinites).<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>The</strong> Use <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong>: English<br />
• <strong>The</strong> possibility to use a bare plural seems to<br />
depend not only on intensionality (as in Dayal<br />
(2003)), but also on the temporal specificity<br />
<strong>of</strong> the respective predicate<br />
• If the interval is “too specific”, the definite<br />
article has to be chosen:<br />
(13) (*<strong>The</strong>) biologists that lecture on kangaroos are<br />
usually open-minded.<br />
(14) *(<strong>The</strong>) biologists that lectured on kangaroos at<br />
the conference last summer were usually openminded.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>The</strong> Use <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong>: German<br />
• In German, a plural definite as well as a bare<br />
plural may be used to express the meaning <strong>of</strong><br />
(13) (see (15)), whereas the definite article is<br />
obligatory if the intervals are specific (see<br />
(16)):<br />
(15) (Die) Biologen, die Vorlesungen über Kängurus<br />
geben, sind meistens aufgeschlossen.<br />
(16) *(Die) Biologen, die auf der Konferenz im letzten<br />
Sommer einen Vortrag über Kängurus gehalten<br />
haben, waren meistens aufgeschlossen.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>The</strong> Use <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
Assuming that kinds are sum individuals that exist not only<br />
during a specific time interval, it follows:<br />
• For English:<br />
• <strong>Bare</strong> <strong>Plural</strong>: respective NP denotes a temporally nonspecific<br />
set ⇒ kind denoting<br />
• <strong>Plural</strong> Definite: respective NP denotes a temporally<br />
specific set ⇒ not kind denoting<br />
• German:<br />
(17) (*<strong>The</strong>) Dinosaurs are extinct.<br />
• <strong>Bare</strong> <strong>Plural</strong>: respective NP denotes a temporally nonspecific<br />
set ⇒ kind denoting<br />
• <strong>Plural</strong> Definite: respective NP denotes a temporally<br />
specific or non-specific set ⇒ kind denoting or not<br />
(18) (Die) Dinosaurier sind ausgestorben.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>The</strong> Use <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
• In the default case, in English, definite DPs denote the<br />
maximal sum individuals that fulfil the respective<br />
predicate at the time <strong>of</strong> utterance or at another<br />
contextually salient time interval:<br />
(19) <strong>The</strong> members <strong>of</strong> this club usually vote for the<br />
democrats.<br />
(20) Members <strong>of</strong> this club usually vote for the democrats.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> definite DP in (19) only denotes the members <strong>of</strong><br />
the club at the speech time, while the bare plural in<br />
(20) denotes the plural individual consisting <strong>of</strong> the<br />
current members plus past <strong>and</strong> future members (cf.<br />
Lenci & Bertinetto (1999)).<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
QV with <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• How does sentence (3) get its QV-reading, if Q-<br />
adverbs are not unselective binders?<br />
(3) <strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the<br />
conference last summer were usually open-minded.<br />
• How can co-variation with the eventualities be<br />
achieved in the case <strong>of</strong> plural definites?<br />
• Problematic because the definite article is not<br />
allowed to pick out different individuals from one<br />
<strong>and</strong> the same set (cf. Link (1983)).<br />
• It denotes the maximal sum individual in the set<br />
it is applied to.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Co-variation with Eventualities<br />
• Co-variation can come about because the set<br />
denoted by the respective NP-complement <strong>of</strong> the<br />
definite article varies itself.<br />
(21) <strong>The</strong> people in Peter’s class are usually French.<br />
(22) *<strong>The</strong> people in Peter’s current class are usually<br />
French.<br />
• In (21), the NP people in Peter’s class varies<br />
with the school years.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> NP class contains a silent eventuality<br />
variable that is bound by the Q-adverb.<br />
• An eventuality predicate λe.school-year(e) is<br />
inferred on the basis <strong>of</strong> clause internal<br />
information. (see appendix for details)<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Co-variation with Eventualities<br />
• In (22), the adjective current fixes the<br />
denotation <strong>of</strong> class to a single eventuality:<br />
(22) *<strong>The</strong> people in Peter’s current class are<br />
usually French.<br />
• In effect, the set people in Peter’s current class<br />
is also fixed.<br />
• Each <strong>of</strong> the eventualities quantified over has to<br />
include the same sum individual.<br />
• (22) then is bad for the same reason as:<br />
(23) *Peter is usually French.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Distribution over Sum<br />
Eventuality Parts<br />
• Acceptability <strong>of</strong> (3) cannot be explained by co-variation<br />
with the eventualities.<br />
(3) <strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the<br />
conference last summer were usually open-minded.<br />
• No element like class inside the NP that may contain a<br />
varying eventuality variable.<br />
• QV-reading has to come about in a different manner.<br />
• Q-adverb quantifies over the atomic parts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
respective maximal sum eventuality.<br />
• If the verbal predicate is interpreted distributively, each<br />
atomic part <strong>of</strong> the sum eventuality contains an atomic<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the sum individual (cf. Nakanishi <strong>and</strong> Romero’s<br />
(2004) analysis <strong>of</strong> for the most part).<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Distribution over Sum<br />
Eventuality Parts<br />
(3) <strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the<br />
conference last summer were usually open-minded.<br />
Most e [e ∈ Atom(σ{e’: arg* (e’, the_biologists e’’<br />
)})]<br />
[e ∈ Atom(σ{e’: open_minded(e’)})]<br />
• Where the_biologists e’’<br />
is the maximal sum individual<br />
<strong>of</strong> the biologists who participated in the relative clause<br />
event e’’ (lecturing) at the conference last summer.<br />
(see appendix for details)<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Outline<br />
• Data<br />
• QV-strategies<br />
strategies:<br />
- With Singular Indefinites<br />
- With <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
- With <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Constraints for the Availability <strong>of</strong> QV-Readings:<br />
- Tense Agreement ⇒ Interval Resolution Strategy<br />
(IRS):<br />
- For Singular Indefinites<br />
- For <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
- Coincidence Constraint:<br />
- For <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Explanation for Non-Restriction <strong>of</strong> QV with<br />
<strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
QV with Indefinites<br />
(5) ?? A car that was bought in the 80s is usually blue.<br />
(6) A car that was bought in the 80s was usually blue.<br />
• Every quantification comes with a domain<br />
restriction (cf. von Fintel (1994), Stanley<br />
(2000), Marti (2003))<br />
• Domain restriction for events means to locate<br />
them in time (Lenci <strong>and</strong> Bertinetto (1999)).<br />
• <strong>The</strong> respective interval is determined by the<br />
pragmatic IRS (cf. Endriss <strong>and</strong> Hinterwimmer<br />
(to appear)).<br />
• Acceptability differences can be explained via<br />
(conflicting) tense information.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Technical Assumptions<br />
(5) ?? A car that was bought in the 80s is usually blue.<br />
Most e. [∃x [arg(e, x) ∧ car (x) ∧ ∃e’ [buy(e’) ∧<br />
theme(e’, x) ∧ past(e’) ∧ in_80s(e’) ∧ e’ @ i’] ∧<br />
C’’(x) ∧ e @ i] [blue (e) ∧ pres(e)]<br />
• C(e) is <strong>of</strong> the form e @ i<br />
• e @ i := τ(e) ⊆ i e , whereτ(e) denotes the<br />
running time <strong>of</strong> e<br />
• pres(e) := now ∈τ(e)<br />
past(e) := τ(e) < now<br />
• Interval i is determined by the IRS<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Interval Resolution Strategy (Sketch)<br />
• How to find the salient time interval?<br />
- Take overt information if available.<br />
- Take contextual information, i.e. the running<br />
time <strong>of</strong> another salient event, if available (cf.<br />
Partee, 1973).<br />
(see appendix for details)<br />
(5) ?? A car that was bought in the 80s is usually blue.<br />
Most e. [∃x [arg(e, x) ∧ car (x) ∧ ∃e’ [buy(e’) ∧<br />
theme(e’, x) ∧ past(e’) ∧ in_80s(e’) ∧ e’ @ i’] ∧<br />
C’’(x) ∧ e @ i] [blue (e) ∧ pres(e)]<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Acceptability differences explained<br />
• (5) is out due to the IRS:<br />
(5) ?? A car that was bought in the 80s is usually blue.<br />
Most e. [∃x [arg(e, x) ∧ car (x) ∧ ∃e’ [buy(e’) ∧<br />
theme(e’, x) ∧ past(e’) ∧ in_80s(e’) ∧ e’ @ 80s] ∧<br />
C’’(x) ∧ e @ τ(e’)] [blue (e) ∧ pres(e)]<br />
• Restrictor: eventualities take place before speech time.<br />
• Nucleus: eventualities include speech time.<br />
• Necessarily yields an empty intersection.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> sentence is out.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Acceptability differences explained<br />
• On the other h<strong>and</strong>, (6) is predicted to be<br />
acceptable:<br />
(6) A car that was bought in the 80s was usually blue.<br />
Most e. [∃x [arg(e, x) ∧ car (x) ∧ ∃e’ [buy(e’) ∧<br />
theme(e’, x) ∧ past(e’) ∧ in_80s(e’) ∧ e’ @ 80s] ∧<br />
C’’(x) ∧ e @ τ(e’)] [blue (e) ∧ past(e)]<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Acceptability <strong>of</strong> (3)<br />
(3) <strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the<br />
conference last summer were usually open-minded.<br />
Most e [e ∈ Atom(σ{e’: arg*(e’, the_biologists e’’ )})<br />
∧ e @ τ(e’’)]<br />
[e ∈ Atom(σ{e’: open_m(e’) ∧ past(e’)})]<br />
(see appendix for details)<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Unacceptability <strong>of</strong> (8)<br />
(8) *<strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the conference<br />
last summer are usually open-minded.<br />
Most e [e ∈ Atom(σ{e’: arg*(e’, the_biologists e’’ )})<br />
∧ e @ τ(e’’)]<br />
[e ∈ Atom(σ{e’: open_m(e’) ∧ pres(e’)})]<br />
(see appendix for details)<br />
• Restrictor: eventualities take place before speech time.<br />
• Nucleus: eventualities include speech time.<br />
• Necessarily yields an empty intersection.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> sentence is out.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Unacceptability <strong>of</strong> (9)<br />
(9) *<strong>The</strong> biologists that listened to Peter’s talk on kangaroo tails<br />
at the conference last summer were usually open-minded.<br />
Most e [e ∈ Atom(σ{e’: arg*(e’, the_biologists e’’ )})<br />
∧ e @ τ(e’’)]<br />
[e ∈ Atom(σ{e’: open_m(e’) ∧ pres(e’)})]<br />
(see appendix for details)<br />
• Explanation for oddity <strong>of</strong> (9) has nothing to do with conflicting<br />
tense information.<br />
• Coincidence Constraint explains the oddity by restricting the<br />
co-occurences <strong>of</strong> the involved eventualities.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Coincidence Constraint<br />
• Coincidence Constraint (cf. Lasersohn (1995) <strong>and</strong><br />
Zimmermann (2003) for related constraints): QV<br />
only possible if atomic events allow for temporal<br />
variation (see appendix for details).<br />
• In (9), all atomic listening events necessarily<br />
temporally coincide (on Peter‘s lecture) which<br />
somehow turns the sentence uninterpretable.<br />
• Seems to suggest that Q-adverbs actually operate<br />
on the temporal component <strong>of</strong> eventualties.<br />
• Compare to adverbs operating on the local<br />
component:<br />
(24) A horse is loved everywhere.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Coincidence Constraint: Unacceptability <strong>of</strong> (4)<br />
• <strong>The</strong> Coincidence Constraint also explains the oddity <strong>of</strong><br />
(4) <strong>and</strong> (22) as well as the non-availability <strong>of</strong> a QVreading<br />
<strong>of</strong> (10) <strong>and</strong> (19):<br />
(4) *<strong>The</strong> biologists (over there) are usually open-minded.<br />
• As argued above, a definite DP denotes the maximal<br />
sum individual that fulfills the respective predicate at<br />
the time <strong>of</strong> utterance or at another contextually salient<br />
time interval.<br />
• In (4), the Coincidence Constraint is violated as all the<br />
eventualities then temporally coincide (to the time <strong>of</strong><br />
utterance).<br />
• Compare this to:<br />
(25) My Maths teachers were usually open-minded.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Outline<br />
• Data<br />
• QV-strategies<br />
strategies:<br />
- With Singular Indefinites<br />
- With <strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
- With <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Constraints for the Availability <strong>of</strong> QV-Readings<br />
Readings:<br />
- Tense Agreement ⇒ Interval Resolution Strategy<br />
(IRS):<br />
- For Singular Indefinites<br />
- For <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
- Coincidence Constraint:<br />
- For <strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong><br />
• Explanation for Non-Restriction <strong>of</strong> QV with<br />
<strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong><br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong>: Acceptability <strong>of</strong> (11)<br />
• Q-adverb directly quantifies over eventualities each <strong>of</strong> which<br />
contains an individual that realizes the kind denoted by the<br />
bare plural at that eventuality.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> denotation <strong>of</strong> the bare plural is not accessible in the<br />
restriction.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> plural eventuality introduced by the relative clause does<br />
not influence the choice <strong>of</strong> the eventualities quantified over.<br />
(11) Biologists that lectured on kangaroos in the eighties are<br />
usually open-minded.<br />
Most e [∃x. real(x, biologists_tlokite, e) ∧<br />
arg(e, x) ∧ e @ t world<br />
)]<br />
[open_m(e) ∧ pres(e)]<br />
(where real means realizes).<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
<strong>Bare</strong> <strong><strong>Plural</strong>s</strong>: Acceptability <strong>of</strong> (11)<br />
• Q-adverb directly quantifies over eventualities each <strong>of</strong> which<br />
contains an individual that realizes the kind denoted by the<br />
bare plural at that eventuality.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> denotation <strong>of</strong> the bare plural is not accessible in the<br />
restriction.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> plural eventuality introduced by the relative clause does<br />
not influence the choice <strong>of</strong> the eventualities quantified over.<br />
(11) Biologists that lectured on kangaroos in the eighties are<br />
usually open-minded.<br />
Most e [∃x. real(x, biologists_tlokite, e) ∧<br />
arg(e, x) ∧ e @ t world<br />
)]<br />
[open_m(e) ∧ pres(e)]<br />
(where real means realizes).<br />
• Note that existential quantification over instances is only<br />
possible with plural individuals the defining property <strong>of</strong> which<br />
is temporally not “too specific”.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Summary<br />
• Q-adverbs are not unselective, but quantify<br />
solely over eventualities.<br />
• Interval Resolution Strategy (IRS) accounts<br />
for (un-)acceptability judgements on base <strong>of</strong><br />
time information <strong>of</strong> the eventualities involved.<br />
• Works for singular indefinites as well as plural<br />
definites.<br />
• QV readings with bare plurals are not<br />
constrained by the IRS.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
References<br />
• Berman, Steve (1987): Situation-Based Semantics for<br />
Adverbs <strong>of</strong> Quantification, University <strong>of</strong> Massachusetts<br />
Occasional Papers 12.<br />
• Chierchia, Gennaro (1995): Individual Level Predicates as<br />
Inherent Generics. In: G. Carlson <strong>and</strong> F. J. Pelletier (eds.),<br />
<strong>The</strong> Generic Book, 176-223, University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press,<br />
Chicago.<br />
• Chierchia, Gennaro (1998): Reference to Kinds across<br />
Languages,<br />
in: Natural Language Semantics 6-4, 339-405.<br />
• Carlson, Greg (1977): Reference to kinds in English.<br />
Amherst: University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Massachusetts dissertation.<br />
• Dayal, Veneta (2004): Number Marking <strong>and</strong><br />
(In)definiteness in Kind Terms, in: Linguistics <strong>and</strong><br />
Philosophy 27-4, 393-450.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
References<br />
• Endriss, Cornelia <strong>and</strong> Stefan Hinterwimmer (to appear): <strong>The</strong><br />
influence <strong>of</strong> tense on quantificational variability effects. In: J.<br />
Doelling <strong>and</strong> T. Heyde-Zybatow (eds.), Event Structures in<br />
Linguistic Form <strong>and</strong> Interpretation.<br />
• von Fintel, Kai (1994): Restrictions on Quantifier Domains,<br />
PhD thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Massachusetts.<br />
• Herburger, Elena (2000): What Counts. Cambridge,<br />
Massachusetts.<br />
• Krifka, Manfred (1995): Focus <strong>and</strong> the Interpretation <strong>of</strong><br />
Generic Sentences. In G. Carlson, F. J. Pelletier, eds., <strong>The</strong><br />
Generic Book, 238-264, University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
• Lasersohn, Peter (1995). <strong>Plural</strong>ity, Conjunction <strong>and</strong> Events,<br />
Kluwer, Dordrecht.<br />
• Lenci, Aless<strong>and</strong>ro <strong>and</strong> P. M. Bertinetto (1999): Aspect,<br />
Adverbs, <strong>and</strong> Events: Habituality vs. Perfectivity. In: F.<br />
Pianesi, J. Higginbotham <strong>and</strong> A. C. Varzi (eds.), Speaking <strong>of</strong><br />
Events, 245-287. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
References<br />
• Link, Godehard (1983): <strong>The</strong> logical analysis <strong>of</strong> plurals <strong>and</strong><br />
mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: R. Bäuerle<br />
et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use <strong>and</strong> Interpretation <strong>of</strong> Language,<br />
302-323.<br />
• Marti, Luisa (2003): Contextual Variables. PhD thesis,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Connecticut.<br />
• Nakanishi, Kimiko <strong>and</strong> Maribel Romero (2004): Two<br />
construcions with Most <strong>and</strong> their SemanticProperties,<br />
Proceedings <strong>of</strong> NELS 34.<br />
• Partee, (1995): Quantificational Structures <strong>and</strong><br />
Compositionality. In: A. Kratzer, E. Bach, E. Jelinek <strong>and</strong> B.<br />
Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, 541-<br />
602, Kluwer, Dordrecht.<br />
• Partee, B. (1973): Some Structural Analogies Between<br />
Tenses <strong>and</strong> Pronouns in English. <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Philosophy,<br />
70, no. 18, 601-609.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
References<br />
• Rooth, Mats (1985): Indefinites, Adverbs <strong>of</strong> Quantification<br />
<strong>and</strong> Focus Semantics. In: G. Carlson <strong>and</strong> F. J. Pelletier<br />
(eds.), <strong>The</strong> Generic Book, 265-299, University <strong>of</strong> Chicago<br />
Press.<br />
• Stanley, Jason (2002): Nominal Restriction. In: G. Peters<br />
<strong>and</strong> G. Preyer (eds.), Logical Form <strong>and</strong> Language, 365-388,<br />
Oxford University Press.<br />
• De Swart (1993): Adverbs <strong>of</strong> Quantification. A Generalized<br />
Quantifier Approach. Garl<strong>and</strong>, New York.<br />
• Zimmermann, Malte (2003): Pluractionality <strong>and</strong> Complex<br />
Quantifier Formation. In: Natural Language Semantics<br />
11:3, 249-287.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Appendix:<br />
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Co-variation with Eventualities<br />
(21) <strong>The</strong> people in Peter’s class are usually French.<br />
Most e. [school year (e)] [∃e’ ≤ e [arg*(e’,<br />
σ{X: people in Peter’s class e *(X)}) ∧ french*(e’)]<br />
Where σ({X: P*(X)}) = def<br />
(cf. Link (1983))<br />
ιX(P*(X) ∧<br />
∀Y[P*(Y) → Y ≤ X])<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Appendix:<br />
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Distribution over Sum Eventuality Parts<br />
(3) <strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the<br />
conference last summer were usually open-minded.<br />
Most e. [e ∈ Atom (σ{e’: arg*(e’, σ{X: people* (X) ∧<br />
∃e’’ [ agent(e’’, X) ∧ lecture*(e’’) ]})})]<br />
[e ∈ Atom (σ{e’: open_minded(e’)})]<br />
Where Atom is the function which maps a sum<br />
eventuality to the set <strong>of</strong> its atomic parts.<br />
(cf. Link (1983)).<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Appendix:<br />
Interval Resolution Strategy<br />
• How to find the salient time interval?<br />
1. Take overt information<br />
2. If not available: Take local contextual<br />
information from the same domain<br />
(restrictor vs. nucleus), i.e. the<br />
running time <strong>of</strong> another salient event<br />
3. If not available: Take contextual<br />
information from the other domain or<br />
take the default time interval which<br />
denotes the whole time axis t world<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Appendix:<br />
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Acceptability <strong>of</strong> (3)<br />
(3) <strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the<br />
conference last summer were usually open-minded.<br />
Most e. [e ∈ Atom (σ{e’: arg*(e’, σ{X: people*(X) ∧<br />
∃e’’ [ agent (e’’, X) ∧ lecture*(e’’) ∧<br />
past(e’’) ]})}) ∧ e @ τ(e’’)]<br />
[e ∈ Atom (σ{e’: open_minded(e’) ∧ past(e’)})]<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Appendix:<br />
<strong>Plural</strong> <strong>Definites</strong>: Unacceptability <strong>of</strong> (8)<br />
(8) *<strong>The</strong> biologists that lectured on kangaroos at the conference<br />
last summer are usually open-minded.<br />
Most e. [e ∈ Atom (σ{e’: arg*(e’, σ{X: people*(X) ∧<br />
∃e’’ [ agent(e’’, X) ∧ lecture*(e’’) ∧<br />
past(e’’)]})}) ∧ e @ τ(e’’)]<br />
[e ∈ Atom (σ{e’: open_minded(e’) ∧ pres(e’)})]<br />
• Restrictor: eventualities take place before speech time.<br />
• Nucleus: eventualities include speech time.<br />
• Necessarily yields an empty intersection.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> sentence is out.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Appendix:<br />
Coincidence Constraint<br />
• Running time <strong>of</strong> a plural eventuality e*:<br />
τ(e*) = def ιt. ∀e’ ∈ Atom(e*) [τ(e’) ⊆ t ∧<br />
∀t’ [∀e’ ∈ Atom(e*) [τ(e’) ⊆ t’] → t ⊆ t’ ]]<br />
• <strong>The</strong> running time <strong>of</strong> a plural eventuality e* contains the<br />
running time <strong>of</strong> an atomic eventuality e’:<br />
τ(e’) ⊆τ(e*) def<br />
∃e’’∈ Atom(e*) [τ(e’) ⊆τ(e’’)]<br />
• Coincidence Constraint:<br />
A set <strong>of</strong> eventualities E fulfills the coincidence constraint<br />
iff<br />
¬ [∀e, e’ ∈ E [τ(e) = τ(e’)]]<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005
Appendix:<br />
Coincidence Constraint<br />
(9) *<strong>The</strong> biologists that listened to Peter’s talk on kangaroo<br />
tails at the conference last summer were usually openminded.<br />
Most e. [e ∈ Atom (σ{e’: arg*(e’, σ{X: people*(X) ∧<br />
∃e’’ [ agent(e’’, X) ∧ listen*(e’’) ∧<br />
past(e’’)]})}) ∧ e @ τ(e’’)]<br />
[e ∈ Atom (σ{e’: open_minded(e’) ∧ past(e’)})]<br />
• Due to IRS, the running time <strong>of</strong> each e has to be<br />
included in (e’’).<br />
• Ergo, for each e there has to be a corresponding atom<br />
e’ in e’’ such that (e) ⊆ (e’).<br />
• Running times <strong>of</strong> all atomic eventualities in e’’ coincide.<br />
• <strong>The</strong>refore, the eventualities e all coincide temporally.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> coincidence constraint is violated.<br />
Indefinites <strong>and</strong> Weak Quantifiers, Brussels 2005