Results 1 -
7 of
7
for-adverbials and the specified quantity generalization
, 2010
"... Goals of this talk: • to argue and present novel evidence that the scopal behavior of for-adverbials and of mass/plural quantifiers like all, most are governed by the same principles (Carlson, 1981; Moltmann, 1991, 1997). • to present a novel generalization in need of formalization. ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 2 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Goals of this talk: • to argue and present novel evidence that the scopal behavior of for-adverbials and of mass/plural quantifiers like all, most are governed by the same principles (Carlson, 1981; Moltmann, 1991, 1997). • to present a novel generalization in need of formalization.
A unified account of distributivity, for-adverbials, and measure constructions
- Proceedings of the 14th Sinn und Bedeutung conference. Universität
"... This paper presents a diagnostic for identifying distributive constructions and shows that it applies to pseudopartitives and for-adverbials. On this basis, a unified account is proposed for the parallels between the constructions involved. This account explains why for-adverbials reject telic predi ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper presents a diagnostic for identifying distributive constructions and shows that it applies to pseudopartitives and for-adverbials. On this basis, a unified account is proposed for the parallels between the constructions involved. This account explains why for-adverbials reject telic predicates (*run to the store for five hours), why pseudopartitives reject count nouns (*five pounds of book), and why both reject certain measure functions like temperature and speed (*30℃ of water, *drive for 5 mph). These restrictions all follow from a general constraint on distributive constructions. Related concepts such as the D operator (Link, 1987), the subinterval property (Bennett and Partee, 1972), and divisive reference (Cheng, 1973) can be understood as formalizing special cases of this constraint. 1
On the Maximalization of the Witness sets in Independent Set readings
"... Before starting, I would like to ask reader’s opinion about the truth/falsity of certain NL statements. The statements are about figures depicting dots connected to stars. In the figures, we distinguish between dots and stars that are connected, i.e. ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Before starting, I would like to ask reader’s opinion about the truth/falsity of certain NL statements. The statements are about figures depicting dots connected to stars. In the figures, we distinguish between dots and stars that are connected, i.e.
The scope of for-adverbials: A reply to Deo and Piñango (2011) ∗
"... • Deo and Piñango (2011 at SALT, D&P for short) present an ambitious theory of foradverbials that claims to account not only for their aspectual sensitivity but also for a number of other phenomena: their puzzling scopal behavior and their ability to trigger iterative and partitive reinterpretations ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
• Deo and Piñango (2011 at SALT, D&P for short) present an ambitious theory of foradverbials that claims to account not only for their aspectual sensitivity but also for a number of other phenomena: their puzzling scopal behavior and their ability to trigger iterative and partitive reinterpretations, along with certain psycho-/neurolinguistic effects.
For-adverbials and the scope of indefinites ∗
"... • For-adverbials are commonly considered the most reliable diagnostic of the distinction between atelic and telic predicates (Vendler, 1957; Verkuyl, 1989): (1) a. John ran / drove towards the store / drank wine for an hour. atelic b.?John ran a mile / drove to the store / drank 1l of wine for an ho ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
• For-adverbials are commonly considered the most reliable diagnostic of the distinction between atelic and telic predicates (Vendler, 1957; Verkuyl, 1989): (1) a. John ran / drove towards the store / drank wine for an hour. atelic b.?John ran a mile / drove to the store / drank 1l of wine for an hour. telic
