Varieties of Distributivity: 'One by One' vs 'Each'

Brașoveanu, Adrian; Henderson, Robert

doi:10.3765/salt.v19i0.2538

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As illustrated below, in such sentences, the presence of the distributive suffix -ssik is felt to contribute nothing to the overall truth-conditions, but in some sense simply 'reinforces' the distributivity contributed by kakkak 'each'. A similar phenomenon can be observed in English, as noted by Brasoveanu & Henderson (2009), Szabolcsi (2011), and Dotlačil (2012. Note that in sentences like the following, the distributive determiner each is somewhat redundant, and seems only to reinforce the distributive contribution of one by one.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Oh 2001but cf. Oh , 2005Brasoveanu & Henderson (2009)), the semantics developed here cannot directly account for the reported meanings of (94) and (95). However, the failure here needn't necessarily lie in the proposed semantics for distance distributives, but could instead indicate that a more sophisticated semantics is needed for the distributive markers kakkak and each.…”

Section: (95) Interaction Between One By One and Each In Englishmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Although the accounts vary greatly in their details, such approaches to distributive numerals and distance distributivity can be found in the work of Henderson (2011) andDotlačil (2012), with important precursors in the work of Farkas (1997) and Brasoveanu & Henderson (2009). Unfortunately, due to the technical complexity of the DPlL framework, I can offer only the barest sketch of the general structure of these accounts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distributive numerals and distance distributivity in Tlingit (and beyond)

Cable¹

2014

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and KeywordsThis paper develops a formal semantic and syntactic analysis of distributive numerals in Tlingit, a highly endangered language of Alaska, British Columbia and the Yukon. Such numerals enforce a 'distributive reading' of the sentence, and thus are one instance of the broader phenomenon of 'distance distributivity' (Zimmermann 2002). As in many other languages, a Tlingit sentence containing a distributive numeral can describe two distinct kinds of 'distributive scenarios': (i) a scenario where the distribution is over some plural entity (cf. 'My sons caught three fish each'), and (ii) one where the distribution is over some plural event (cf. 'My sons caught three fish each time') (Gil 1982, Choe 1987, Zimmermann 2002, Oh 2005. Despite this apparent ambiguity, I put forth a univocal semantics for Tlingit distributive numerals, one whereby they consistently invoke quantification over events. Under this semantics, the ability for distributive numerals to describe both kinds of scenarios in (i) and (ii) is not due to an ambiguity, but instead to the sentences having relatively weak truth-conditions. In contrast to prior analyses of distributive numerals and distance distributivity, the proposed semantics does not actually make use of distributive operators, but nevertheless retains a rather conservative picture of the syntax-semantics interface. The analysis can also account for certain locality effects noted for distance distributives in Korean and German (Zimmermann 2002, Oh 2005), as well as an intriguing puzzle regarding distributive numerals and pluractionality in Kaqchikel (Henderson 2011). Finally, I show how the analysis can be extended to the well-known case of English 'binominal each'.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: (95) Interaction Between One By One and Each In Englishmentioning

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distributive numerals and distance distributivity in Tlingit (and beyond)

Cable¹

2014

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With group nouns, like (4), the head noun denotes individuals that must be constituted by a plurality, not mass or kind entities. This is not generally the case for singular count nouns, as (5) shows. If we borrow Barker's definitional criterion for group nouns, though, and use it for collective nouns as a class, new criteria are needed for distinguishing those nouns with group reference and those with swarm reference.…”

Section: Groups Vs Swarms In the Nominal Domainmentioning

confidence: 93%

Swarms: Spatiotemporal grouping across domains

Henderson

2016

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents cross-domain evidence that natural language makes use of (at least) two ways of individuating collective entities that differ in terms of how they cohere. The first kind, which I call swarm reference, picks out higher-order collective entities defined in terms of the spatial and temporal configuration of their constituent individuals. The second, which corresponds to canonical cases of group reference (e.g. committee, team, etc.), makes use of non-spatiotemporal notions. To motivate this distinction, I present systematic differences in how these two types of collective reference behave linguistically, both in the individual and event domains. These differences support two primary results. First, they are used as tests to isolate a new class of collective nouns that denote swarm individuals, both in English, as well as other languages like Romanian. I then consider a crosslinguistically common type of pluractionality, called event-internal in the previous literature (Cusic 1981;Wood 2007), and show that its properties are best explained if the relevant verbs denote swarm events. By reducing event-internal pluractionality to a type of collective reference also available for nouns, this work generates a new strong argument that pluractionality involves the same varieties of plural reference in the event domain that are seen in the individual domain.

show abstract

“…However, departing from these authors, we will argue that this predicate can take scope at different levels with a non-trivial semantic effect; in particular, when a pluractional marker takes scope above a distributive operator, it may be satisfied by properties of the event plurality that is introduced by that operator. In this proposal, we follow the spirit of Brasoveanu & Henderson's (2009) analysis of English 'one by one ' and Henderson's (2014) analysis of dependent indefinites, also exemplified in Kuhn (to appear).…”

Section: Scopable Pluractionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%