A Variation and Extension of a Montague Fragment of English

Bennett, Michael James

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-545850-4.50010-8

Cited by 57 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bennett (1974) was the first to propose a semantics of number along these lines, and this assumption has been adopted by all subsequent research. Fur thermore most research has followed Bennett to assume that the [PI]-feature on the verb remains uninterpreted in English, and is a reflex of syntactic agreement with the subject.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Semantics for Number

Sauerland

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the semantics of number has been strongly influenced by the distri bution of overt number morphology in English. As is well know, number can be expressed on nouns and on verbs in English. In example (1), overt plural morphol ogy is present in both places.(1)The books- [PL] were-[pL] lying on the table.All research on plurality has assumed the the [pI]-feature on the noun is interpreted in some way. Bennett (1974) was the first to propose a semantics of number along these lines, and this assumption has been adopted by all subsequent research. Fur thermore most research has followed Bennett to assume that the [PI]-feature on the verb remains uninterpreted in English, and is a reflex of syntactic agreement with the subject. 1 A contemporary version of Bennett's proposal (e.g. Chierchia 1998b, Schwarzschild 1996) assigns to the singular noun book a set of individuals as its extension, while the extension of the plural noun books includes groups of these in dividuals (and, for Schwarzschild, atomic individuals, as well). These denotations are illustrated in (2): 2 (2) a.[book] = {a, b, c} b.[books] = {aEBbEBc, aEBb, aEBc, ... } However, in many languages, overt plural morphology is also found on the determiner as shown by the German example (3a) . Even in English plurality is also expressed on demonstrative determiners as in (3b). In this paper, I will argue that even German does not express morpholog ically the [PI]-feature that is interpreted. I propose that there is another syntactic head above the determiner, which I call the ¢-head, and that the only semantically contentful number features are contained in this head. Furthermore, I will argue that [PI] on nouns is not interpreted, but is a reflex of syntactic agreement with a ¢-head, just like [PI] on adjectives, verbs, and determiners. There have to be two agreement processes, one to establish agreement in the DP between N, A, D, and the ¢-head. The other one to establish agreement between the finite verb and a ¢P in the subject position.I first present my proposal in all detail, and then present two arguments

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Semantics for Number

Sauerland

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sauerland (2003) afirma ter sido a pesquisa acerca da semântica do número fortemente influenciada pela distribuição de marcas morfológicas explícitas de número. Bennett (1974) foi um dos primeiros a assumir que a marca de plural nos nomes deveria ser de alguma maneira interpretável, enquanto esse traço no verbo seria não-interpretável, um puro reflexo de concordância sintática com o sujeito. Sauerland observa que, no alemão, a marca morfológica explícita de plural aparece também no determinante, o que indica que haveria outras opções a considerar em relação ao local de interpretabilidade semântica desse traço.…”

unclassified

Explorando o DP: a presença da categoria NumP

Augusto¹,

Neto²,

Corrêa³

2006

Rev. Est. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on NumP, an independent projection for number,which was proposed in pre-minimalist research (Picallo, 1991; Ritter,1991). Arguments for the relevance of maintaining it as anindependent projection in a minimalist framework, contrary toChomsky (1999), who assumes number is one of the j-featuresassociated to N, are provided. The consequences such presenceimposes for DP internal agreement phenomenon are discussed andsome alternatives to account for it are offered.

show abstract

“…My proposal follows Bennett (1974), Chierchia (1998), Farkas and de Swart (2010), Harbour (2014), among others, in the idea that the morphological plural feature is semantically interpreted as plural. On the other hand, Krifka (1989), Lasersohn (1998, 2011), Sauerland (2003, Sauerland et al (2005), Spector (2007), and others, propose that that feature is not semantically plural (because it is not interpreted at all, or because morphologically marked plural nouns denote sets that contain both atomic and non-atomic individuals, or because they have a naïve semantics).…”

Section: The Interpretation Of Number Morphology In Nounsmentioning

confidence: 79%

The morphosemantics of Spanish indefinites

Martí

2016

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I analyze the Spanish indefinites algún and algunos as a paucal and a greater paucal determiner, respectively, contrary to the common assumption that views the former as singular and the latter as plural. I use Harbour's (2014) feature [±additive], and the possibility of repeating that feature, in order to do so. I propose a transparent word-internal compositional analysis of the two determiners, where alg-contributes [−additive] to both of them. I discuss consequences for the semantics of morphological plurality in nouns and for the analysis of ignorance implicatures.

show abstract

A Variation and Extension of a Montague Fragment of English

Cited by 57 publications

References 2 publications

A New Semantics for Number

A New Semantics for Number

Explorando o DP: a presença da categoria NumP

The morphosemantics of Spanish indefinites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About