Untitled

Zucchi, Sandro; White, Michael

doi:10.1023/a:1005690022190

Cited by 97 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, certain apparently nonquantized predicates like eat something, eat less than three apples, and drink a quantity of wine empirically pattern with telic predicates, which present a challenge for algebraic accounts of aspect including mine (Zucchi and White 2001). Similarly, a number of collective predicates that are incompatible with all, such as be a group of less than five, would be expected to be compatible with all under the account I have discussed here (Kuhn 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Stratified reference: the common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement

Champollion

2015

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why can I tell you that I ran for five minutes but not that I *ran to the store for five minutes? Why can we talk about five pounds of books but not about *five pounds of book? What keeps you from saying *sixty degrees Celsius of water when you can say sixty inches of water? And what goes wrong when I complain that *all the ants in my kitchen are numerous? The constraints on these constructions involve concepts that are generally studied separately: aspect, plural and mass reference, measurement, distributivity, and collectivity. This paper provides a unified perspective on these domains and gives a single answer to the questions above in the framework of algebraic event semantics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Stratified reference: the common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement

Champollion

2015

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This section shows how this conjunct accounts for the scopal behavior of indefinites (following ideas in Zucchi & White 2001;van Geenhoven 2004;Kratzer 2007;Champollion 2010b).…”

Section: The Scopal Behavior Of Indefinitesmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…But as observed by Kratzer (2007), the phenomenon can also be observed in German, which is otherwise known for having a preference for surface scope. Thus each of the two sentences in (10) must involve reference to a single phone number: And as noted by Zucchi & White (2001), the effect does not occur when a universal quantifier like every day intervenes, as in (11). Here, the fleas covary:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The scope and processing of for-adverbials: A reply to Deo and Piñango

Champollion¹

2013

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deo & Piñango (2011) propose a novel account of measure adverbials like for an hour that focuses on their puzzling scopal behavior, their ability to shift predicates into iterative interpretations, and the higher processing cost that this shift engenders. The scopal behavior, though not the processing cost, had been previously modeled in classical accounts of for-adverbials (e.g., Dowty 1979; Krifka 1998). Unlike these accounts, D&P do not provide a semantic explanation of the aspectual sensitivity of for-adverbials. I argue that only a synthesis of D&P and classical accounts captures the full empirical picture. This synthesis both restores the explanation of the aspectual sensitivity, and improves on D&P's account of the scopal behavior. It also opens the door to an explanation of data which suggests that the processing cost of iterativity is not uniform, but varies according to the algebraic properties of the underlying predicates.

show abstract

“…She therefore proposes combining stratified reference with cumulative reference, following Landman and Rothstein (2012). This will rule out both types of examples out as desired, but unfortunately not (1c), discussed by Zucchi and White (2001).…”

Section: Reply To Doetjesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other problematic predicates include twig, rock, and sequence. A helpful but ultimately inconclusive discussion of possible ways to address this problem is found in Zucchi and White (2001). Doetjes correctly observes that some examples involving measure phrases can be ruled out for reasons that are unrelated to the aspectual sensitivity of the for-adverbial.…”

Section: Reply To Doetjesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refining stratified reference

Champollion

2015

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a reply to the comments by Corver, Doetjes, Link, Piñón, Schwarzschild, and Syrett on the target article in this volume, Stratified reference: The common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement. Stratified reference is designed to capture semantic oppositions involving atelicity, plurality and mass reference, extensive measure functions, distributivity, and collectivity. Following suggestions by some of the commentators, stratified reference is refined here in two ways: it is restricted to the parts of the event or individual in question, and its granularity parameter is instantiated with a predicate built around mereological proper parthood and degree ordering.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 97 publications

References 14 publications

Stratified reference: the common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement

Stratified reference: the common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement

The scope and processing of for-adverbials: A reply to Deo and Piñango

Refining stratified reference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About