跨语言的分布和非分布全称量词的统一语义。

IF 1.1 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-09 DOI:10.1007/s11049-025-09673-5
Nina Haslinger, Alain Noindonmon Hien, Emil Eva Rosina, Viola Schmitt, Valerie Wurm
{"title":"跨语言的分布和非分布全称量词的统一语义。","authors":"Nina Haslinger, Alain Noindonmon Hien, Emil Eva Rosina, Viola Schmitt, Valerie Wurm","doi":"10.1007/s11049-025-09673-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Universal quantifiers differ in whether they are restricted to distributive interpretations, like English <i>every</i>, or permit non-distributive interpretations, like English <i>all</i>. This interpretational difference is traditionally captured by positing two unrelated lexical entries for distributive and non-distributive quantification. But this lexical approach does not explain why distributivity correlates with number: cross-linguistically, distributive universal quantifiers typically take singular complements, while non-distributive quantifiers consistently take plural complements. We derive this correlation by proposing a single lexical meaning for the universal quantifier, which derives a non-distributive interpretation if the restrictor predicate is closed under sum, but a distributive interpretation if it is quantized. Support comes from languages in which the same lexical item expresses distributive or non-distributive quantification depending on the number of the complement. For languages like English that have different expressions for non-distributive and distributive quantification, we propose that the distributive forms contain an additional morphosyntactic element that is semantically restricted to combine with a predicate of atomic individuals. This is motivated by the fact that in several languages, the distributive form is structurally more complex than the non-distributive form and sometimes even contains it transparently. We further show that in such languages, there are empirical advantages to taking the choice between distributive and non-distributive quantifier forms to be driven by semantic properties of the restrictor predicate, rather than morphosyntactic number.</p>","PeriodicalId":18975,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","volume":"43 4","pages":"3147-3214"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12460528/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A unified semantics for distributive and non-distributive universal quantifiers across languages.\",\"authors\":\"Nina Haslinger, Alain Noindonmon Hien, Emil Eva Rosina, Viola Schmitt, Valerie Wurm\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11049-025-09673-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Universal quantifiers differ in whether they are restricted to distributive interpretations, like English <i>every</i>, or permit non-distributive interpretations, like English <i>all</i>. This interpretational difference is traditionally captured by positing two unrelated lexical entries for distributive and non-distributive quantification. But this lexical approach does not explain why distributivity correlates with number: cross-linguistically, distributive universal quantifiers typically take singular complements, while non-distributive quantifiers consistently take plural complements. We derive this correlation by proposing a single lexical meaning for the universal quantifier, which derives a non-distributive interpretation if the restrictor predicate is closed under sum, but a distributive interpretation if it is quantized. Support comes from languages in which the same lexical item expresses distributive or non-distributive quantification depending on the number of the complement. For languages like English that have different expressions for non-distributive and distributive quantification, we propose that the distributive forms contain an additional morphosyntactic element that is semantically restricted to combine with a predicate of atomic individuals. This is motivated by the fact that in several languages, the distributive form is structurally more complex than the non-distributive form and sometimes even contains it transparently. We further show that in such languages, there are empirical advantages to taking the choice between distributive and non-distributive quantifier forms to be driven by semantic properties of the restrictor predicate, rather than morphosyntactic number.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"3147-3214\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12460528/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-025-09673-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-025-09673-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全称量词的不同之处在于它们是局限于分配解释,如英语every,还是允许非分配解释,如英语all。这种解释上的差异传统上是通过假定两个不相关的词汇条目用于分布和非分布量化来捕获的。但这种词汇方法并不能解释为什么分配性与数相关:跨语言,分配全称量词通常采用单数补语,而非分配全称量词始终采用复数补语。我们通过提出通用量词的单一词法意义推导出这种相关性,如果限制谓词在和下闭合,则推导出非分配解释,但如果它是量子化的,则推导出分配解释。支持来自于相同词法项根据补语的数量表示分布或非分布量化的语言。对于像英语这样对非分布量化和分布量化有不同表达的语言,我们建议分布形式包含一个额外的形态句法元素,该元素在语义上被限制与原子个体的谓词结合。这是因为在一些语言中,分配形式在结构上比非分配形式更复杂,有时甚至是透明地包含它。我们进一步表明,在这样的语言中,采用由限制谓词的语义属性而不是形态句法数驱动的分布和非分布量词形式的选择具有经验优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A unified semantics for distributive and non-distributive universal quantifiers across languages.

Universal quantifiers differ in whether they are restricted to distributive interpretations, like English every, or permit non-distributive interpretations, like English all. This interpretational difference is traditionally captured by positing two unrelated lexical entries for distributive and non-distributive quantification. But this lexical approach does not explain why distributivity correlates with number: cross-linguistically, distributive universal quantifiers typically take singular complements, while non-distributive quantifiers consistently take plural complements. We derive this correlation by proposing a single lexical meaning for the universal quantifier, which derives a non-distributive interpretation if the restrictor predicate is closed under sum, but a distributive interpretation if it is quantized. Support comes from languages in which the same lexical item expresses distributive or non-distributive quantification depending on the number of the complement. For languages like English that have different expressions for non-distributive and distributive quantification, we propose that the distributive forms contain an additional morphosyntactic element that is semantically restricted to combine with a predicate of atomic individuals. This is motivated by the fact that in several languages, the distributive form is structurally more complex than the non-distributive form and sometimes even contains it transparently. We further show that in such languages, there are empirical advantages to taking the choice between distributive and non-distributive quantifier forms to be driven by semantic properties of the restrictor predicate, rather than morphosyntactic number.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical research that pays close attention to natural language data, offering a channel of communication between researchers of a variety of points of view. The journal actively seeks to bridge the gap between descriptive work and work of a highly theoretical, less empirically oriented nature. In attempting to strike this balance, the journal presents work that makes complex language data accessible to those unfamiliar with the language area being studied and work that makes complex theoretical positions more accessible to those working outside the theoretical framework under review. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory features: generative studies on the syntax, semantics, phonology, morphology, and other aspects of natural language; surveys of recent theoretical developments that facilitate accessibility for a graduate student readership; reactions/replies to recent papers book reviews of important linguistics titles; special topic issues.         Springer fully understands that access to your work is important to you and to the sponsors of your research. We are listed as a green publisher in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, as we allow self-archiving, but most importantly we are fully transparent about your rights. Read more about author''s rights on: http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信