Plural Semantics Research Articles

Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics: The Interpretation of Coordination, Plurality, and Scope in Natural Language

Since the early work of Montague, Boolean semantics and its subfield of generalized quantifier theory have become the model-theoretic foundation for the study of meaning in natural languages. This book uses this framework to develop a new semantic theory of central linguistic phenomena involving coordination, plurality, and scope. The proposed theory makes use of the standard Boolean interpretation of conjunction, a choice-function account of indefinites, and a novel semantics of plurals that is not based on the distributive/collective distinction. The key to unifying these mechanisms is a version of Montagovian semantics that is augmented by flexibility principles: semantic operations that have no counterpart in phonology.This is the first book to cover these areas in a way that is both linguistically comprehensive and formally explicit. On one hand, it addresses questions of primarily linguistic concern: the semantic functions of words like and and or in different languages, the interpretation of indefinites and their scope, and the semantic typology of noun phrases and predicates. On the other hand, it addresses formal questions that are motivated by the treatment of these linguistic problems: the use of Boolean algebras in linguistics, the proper formalization of choice functions within generalized quantifier theory, and the extension of this theory to the domain of plurality. While primarily intended for readers with a background in theoretical linguistics, the book will also be of interest to researchers and advanced students in logic, computational linguistics, philosophy of language, and artificial intelligence.

Dynamic Semantics of Plurals DPLQ⊛

This paper proposes a dynamic semantics of plurals, DPL⊛Q, that is an extension of DPL [8] by adding binary generalized quantifiers, plural terms with join-operators as in Link [17]'s semilattice semantics of plurals, dynamic selectors, dynamic distributors and division functions. DPL⊛Q provides a formalism for handling dependent plurals, bound plurals, generic plurals, and ambiguity of collective/distributive/cumulative interpretation of plurals.

Wholes and Their Covers

No abstract.

Two Kinds of Universals and Two Kinds of Groups

No abstract.

Plurals and Complexes

Atomism denies that complexes exist. Common-sense metaphysics may posit masses, composite individuals and sets, but atomism says there are only simples. In a singularist logic, it is difficult to make a plausible case for atomism. But we should accept plural logic, and then atomism can paraphrase away apparent reference to complexes. The paraphrases require unfamiliar plural universals, but these are of independent interest; for example, we can identify numbers and sets with plural universals. The atomist paraphrases would fail if plurals presuppose complexes: but an Appendix shows that reference to complexes is not required in the semantics of plurals.

Double quantification and the meaning of shenme 'what' in Chinese bare conditionals

This paper shows that the semantics of shenme ‘what’ in Chinese bare conditionals may exhibit a phenomenon of double quantification. I argue that such double quantification can be nicely accounted for if one adopts Carlson's (1977a, b) semantics of bare plurals and verb meanings as well as the following two assumptions: (i) shenme ‘what’ can be a proform of bare NPs and hence has the same kind of denotation as bare NPs, and (ii) Chinese bare NPs are names of kinds of things. This analysis of Chinese bare conditionals lends support to Carlson's approach to bare plurals despite Wilkinson's (1991) criticisms. I also show that an extension of Heim's (1987) analysis of what as ‘something of kind x’ to Chinese shenme ‘what’ encounters problems when shenme ‘what’ is a shared constituent of a predicate which applies to kinds and another predicate which applies to objects.

Regular Plurals in Dutch Compounds: Linking Graphemes or Morphemes?

In this paper, we address the functional role of the orthographic realisation of the linking schwa in Dutch nominal compounds. From a diachronic perspective, the linking schwa is a historical relic of the now obsolete morphological system of medieval Dutch. Synchronically, however, it appears in two orthographic forms, -e and -en, both of which are homographs of high-frequency inflectional affixes. The suffix -e primarily functions as an agreement marker without intrinsic meaning. The suffix -en primarily realises plural number on nouns and verbs. Are plural semantics activated in the mental lexicon when the linking schwa is written as the plural suffix? This question has become relevant for Dutch in the light of a recent change in the spelling rules which now prescribe the -en spelling for compounds with no meaning of plurality. We addressed this question by means of four experiments, which revealed that writing the linking schwa in the orthographic form of the plural suffix does indeed lead to the activation of the plural semantics, even when plural semantics are not intended. We interpret our results within the framework of a parallel dual-route model of morphological processing.