Rigid and Flexible Quantification in Plural Predicate Logic

Champollion, Lucas; Bledin, Justin; Li, Haoze

doi:10.3765/salt.v27i0.4190

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A bibliographic note: The domain-general connection between aspect and mass/count has long been observed (Allen 1966, Taylor 1977, Bach 1986, Krifka 1989. The present extension to collective predication is closely intertwined with a body of recent work that argues that domain-general mereological properties provide a unified perspective regarding patterns involved in mass/count, aspect, measurement, and distributivity (Champollion, 2010;Husband, 2010;Henderson, 2012;Wellwood et al, 2012;Champollion, 2015;Wellwood, 2015;Champollion, 2017). The present article is an updated version of Kuhn (2014), an unpublished conference presentation which repaired some notable problems with Champollion (2010).…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Of particular note, Champollion (2017) Chapter 10, reformulates arguments of Champollion (2010) by adopting the essential insights of Kuhn (2014). In this remainder of this article, I do not discuss Champollion (2017) in any more great depth, for the simple reason that there is no fundamental disagreement between the two works. 1…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We thus correctly predicts the collective reading to be incompatible with all. Zucchi and White (2001) and Champollion et al (2017) provide alternative analyses to the puzzle posed measurement predicates, primarily focusing on the domain of telicity, as exemplified by the contrast in (36).…”

Section: Measured Thematic Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, if attempting to extend Zucchi and White (2001)'s maximality analysis to collective predication, there is no obvious contender to play the role of reference time. Turning to Champollion et al (2017), the proposal predicts the availability of an additional reading that is not clearly attested. In particular, world knowledge about eating events makes it impossible for a single thing to be eaten twice, but when a verb is used that does not have this property, a 'specific' reading is predicted for the sentence.…”

Section: Comparison To Other Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gather/numerous as a mass/count opposition

Kuhn

2020

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicates like gather and be numerous have both been described as 'collective predicates,' since they predicate something of a plurality. The two classes of predicates differ, however, with respect to plural quantifiers (e.g. all), which are grammatical with gather-type predicates but ungrammatical with numerous-type predicates. Here, I show that the gather/numerous opposition derives from mereological properties that are familiar from the domains of telicity and mass/count. I address problems of undergeneration and overgeneration with two technical innovations: first, I weaken the property of divisibility to Champollion's (2015) property of stratified reference; second, I provide mechanisms to rule out accidental satisfaction of the logical property. From a broader perspective, we place collective predication in a larger context by building empirical connections to mass/count and collectivity across semantic domains.

show abstract

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measured Thematic Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison To Other Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gather/numerous as a mass/count opposition

Kuhn

2020

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A previous version of this analysis was presented inMinor (2017). A conceptually similar account of the contrast between bare and 'measured' plurals was later independently proposed byChampollion et al (2017), focusing primarily on the properties of for-adverbials. I will not discuss for-adverbials in this paper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Dependent plurals and three levels of multiplicity

Minor

2021

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper focuses on the semantics of distributivity, grammatical number, and cardinality predicates (numerals and modifiers like several). I argue that constructions involving so-called ‘dependent plurals’, i.e. plurals lacking cardinality predicates occurring in the scope of certain quantificational items such as all and most (e.g. All the girls were wearing hats), pose a challenge to familiar semantic frameworks that distinguish between two sources of multiplicity: mereological plurality and distributive quantification. I argue that dependent plural readings should be analysed as distinct both from cumulative readings and distributive readings, in the classical sense. I demonstrate how this can be accomplished in a semantic framework where expressions are evaluated relative to sets of assignments, or plural info states (van den Berg, in Stokhof and Torenvliet (eds) Proceedings of the 7th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1990, in Dekker and Stokhof (eds) Proceedings of the 9th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1994, Some aspects of the Internal Structure of Discourse. The Dynamics of Nominal Anaphora. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1996). The specific formal implementation is based on a modified version of Brasoveanu’s (Structured nominal and modal reference. PhD thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2007, Linguist Philos 31(2):129–209. 10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0, 2008) Plural Compositional DRT. In this framework we are able to distinguish between two types of distributivity: weak distributivity across the assignments in a single plural info state and strong distributivity across multiple info states. I argue that both of these types of distributivity play a role in the semantics of natural language, accounting for the contrasting properties of ‘singular quantifiers’, such as each and every, and ‘plural quantifiers’, such as all and most. The contrasting properties of bare plurals and plurals involving cardinality modifiers are analysed in terms of the distinction between state-level and assignment-level (mereological) plurality.

show abstract

Kinds, properties and atelicity

Chierchia

2024

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Rigid and Flexible Quantification in Plural Predicate Logic

Cited by 4 publications

References 24 publications

Gather/numerous as a mass/count opposition

Gather/numerous as a mass/count opposition

Dependent plurals and three levels of multiplicity

Kinds, properties and atelicity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About