# Spring 2012 Ling 753 Every versus Each: Some Observations and Proposals. 1. Introduction: Some Reflections on the Meaning of Each

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Spring 2012 Ling 753 Every versus Each: Some Observations and Proposals. 1. Introduction: Some Reflections on the Meaning of Each"

## Transcription

1 Every versus Each: Some Observations and Proposals 1. Introduction: Some Reflections on the Meaning of Each (1) Overarching Question: What the heck does each mean a. when it is adnominal: Each boy walked in. b. when it is adverbial / floated: The boys each walked in. (2) An Initial, Naïve Guess a. Adnominal Each = Every: [ λp : [ λq : y. P(y) Q(y) ] ] b. Floated Each = DIST: [ λp : λx : y. y x & y cov P(y) ] (3) Some Initial Challenges a. Are floated each and adnominal each really separate lexical items? Can we get a univocal interpretation at all, or some principled derivation of former from the latter? b. Unlike DIST (or * ), floated each seems to require distribution down to atoms. (i) (ii) The boys met in the field. (Can describe two groups of boys meeting in separate parts of the field.)?? The boys each met in the field. (Seems to require each atomic boy to meet ; hence, anomalous) c. Despite the predictions of (2a), there seem to be various subtle differences between every and adnominal each, as we will see below (4) Some Disappointing News To my knowledge, there is no fully worked out, explicit semantics for floated each that goes much beyond the semantics in (2b). To my knowledge, there is no fully worked out, explicit semantics for adnominal each that goes much beyond the semantics in (2a). o Many authors have noticed various contrasts between every and each o But usually an analysis is only vaguely/informally stated (Vendler 1967, Farkas 1997, Tunstall 1998), or o Or, the observed differences are analyzed as ultimately syntactic (Beghelli & Stowell 1997). 1

2 (5) Some Oft-Encountered Perspectives on Every vs. Each a. Each is More Distributive than Every There are some contexts where every displays behavior expected of plural (in)definites, where every NP seems to allow a kind of collective prediction. In these same contexts, each NP behaves differently, and as you d expect an obligatorily distributive operator to behave. Even amongst cases of clearly distributive predication, there are instances where every NP is preferable to each NP, and where this seems connected with the way in which each puts a spotlight on the individual entities (i) John took every apple. (Fine on its own.) (ii)?? John took each apple. (Anomalous without some kind of follow up ) b. Each NP Always Requires Contextual Restriction of the NP It is possible to understand every NP to quantify over every single entity in the universe that satisfies NP (5bi). It does not seem possible to understand each NP in a similar way; rather, there must be some salient contextual restriction of the NP (5bii) (i) (ii) Every theory is open to objection. (characterizing statement about theories) Each theory is open to objection. (statement about some contextually given set of theories) As noted by Tunstall (1998), this basic fact is observed in the OED. 2. Vendler (1967) Each and Every, Any and All The main focus of this paper is the semantics of any ; Vendler offers from very precient observations about its licensing conditions, and attempts a unified analysis of NPI and FCI any. However, he also observes some differences between each and every, and so this work remains a locus classicus on the semantics of each Vendler does not offer a very systematic discussion (and no formal analysis). He does offer a variety of tantalizing observations and programmatic hypotheses 2

3 The judgments below are those offered by Vendler; Many strike me as dubious (6) Observation 1: Co-occurrence with One a. Every one of them smokes. (Perfectly fine) b.?? Each one of them smokes. (Sounds redundant) Generalization: Each already implies one in a way that every does not. Each already serves the function of drawing our attention to the individual elements. (7) Observation 2: Co-occurrence with Ordinal Numerals a. He came every second day. b.?? He came each second day. Generalization: Every allows us to consider the days in combination with other days; thus ordinals are OK as in (7a). Each allows us only to consider the days on their own, divorced from others, and so ordinals are not permitted. (8) Observation 3: Cardinality Requirements of Complement. a. (i) Every one of these 10 men smokes. (ii)?? Every one of these 2 men smokes. b. (i) Each of these 10 men smokes. (ii) Each of these two men smokes. c. (i) All of these 10 men smoke. (ii)?? All of these 2 men smoke. Generalization: Every NP sounds pompous if NP complement consists of only two individuals. Each NP is OK in these circumstances. Every NP shares this property with all, which suggests that every is halfway between all and each, and shares with all the function of summing up a large set of objects. Related Etymological Note: every *< ever each 3

4 (9) Observation 4: Collectivity with Each and Every a. Take all these apples. (i) OK if you take the whole bushel at once. (ii) Not really OK if you take each apple one by one. b. Take every one of these apples. (i) OK if you take the whole bushel at once. (ii) OK if you take each apple one by one. c.?? Take each of these apples. (i) Only OK if you take each apple one by one. (ii) Not really OK if you take the whole bushel at once. Also sounds kind of incomplete d. Take each of these apples and examine it. (i) Only OK if you take each apple one by one. Generalizations: All is obligatorily collective; every allows a kind of collective construal; each is obligatorily distributive. The primary meaning of every stresses completeness or exhaustiveness. The meaning of each directs one s attention to the individuals as they appear one by one. The individual attention entailed by each cannot be in vain. You have to do something with each of them, one after the other. (cf. (9c) vs. (9d)). (This last notion in echoed in the work of Tunstall 1998). (10) Observation 5: Each and Pluractionality a. When the king entered the House (i) all the deputies rose at once. (ii) every deputy rose at once. (iii)?? each deputy rose at once. b. (i) Each deputy rose when his name was called. (ii)?? Every deputy rose when his name was called. Generalization: Again, there has to be a reason for using each and focusing attention on the individual entities separately. In an event where every deputy rises at the same time, this individual attention is not motivated, and so is infelicitous. In an event where each deputy rises separately, this individual attention is motivated. The facts like those in (9) and (10) are a major focus of the work of Tunstall (1998) 4

5 3. Beghelli & Stowell Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of Each and Every 3.1 Background Assumptions on the Syntax of Distributivity (11) The Syntax of Quantificational Scope The real focus of this paper is not the contrasts between each and every, which take up only the last 7 of the 34 pages. Rather, the focus of the paper is the exposition and defense of the following claims. a. Quantifiers do not move to their scope positions by a free QR operation, one that can in principle move any DP to any clausally adjoined position. b. Rather, specific kinds of quantifiers move to specific kinds of functional projections, via the usual mechanisms of feature-checking and Agree. RefP Plural (in)definites CP Wh-Phrases AgrS Plural (in)definites DistP every, each DistP DIST ShareP Plural(in)definites NegP N-words, not AgrO (12) An Alleged Prediction Plural (indefinites) VP a. Sentence: (i) A boy read every books. Judgment: (ii) True when each book is read by a different boy. b. Sentence: (i) A boy read every books. Judgment: (ii) True when each book is read by a different boy. c. Sentence: (i) A boy read all the books. (ii) False when each book is read by a different boy. 5

6 (13) The Explanation a. Every book and each book must target SpecDistP. When they do, something must also appear in SpecShareP. This can be the indefinite subject (which reconstructs to that position). [ DistP Each / every book [ DIST [ ShareP a boy [ read ] b. All the books cannot target SpecDistP. Since there is no strongly distributive QP in the sentence, there is DistP. Thus, the only LF allowed is one where a boy occupies AgrS and all the books occupies AgrO. (14) Questions a. What about the high RefP position? Can t all the books move there? Answer: Sure, but when it does so, it s not SpecDistP, and so you don t get the distributive reading in (12c). Rather, you just the collective reading you d get if you left it in situ. b. What about the distributive readings we get for all the NP in sentences like All the boys brought a pencil? Answer: That is pseudo-distributivity. See Beghelli (1996) for a theory of pseudo-distributivity. (13) Another Alleged Prediction a. Each / every boy jumped. b. * Each / every boy didn t jump. (14) The Explanation a. Each / every boy must occupy SpecDP. When they do, something must also fill SpecShareP. If there is no overt QP indefinite, SpecShareP is occupied by the existential quantifier over the Davidsonian event argument. (i) LF: [ DistP Each / every boy [ DIST [ ShareP e [ jump ] (ii) T-Conds: For every boy x, there is an event of jumping that x did. b. Not in English is the (overt) neg-word version of the (phonologically null) existential quantifier over the Davidsonian event argument [[ not ]] = [ λp <εt> : e. P(e) ] c. As a neg-word, not in English must in SpecNegP, never in SpecShareP. Thus, in (13b), there is nothing to fill SpecShareP, and the sentence crashes. 6

7 (15) A Third Alleged Prediction a. Sentence: Every / each boy didn t read one book. b. Judgment: Sentence (15a) only allows one scope reading: every > one > not (16) The Explanation Again, every / each boy must move to SpecDistP, and there must be something in SpecShareP. As explained in (14b,c), not cannot move to SpecShareP, but must stay in SpecNegP. Thus, the only DP able to move to SpecShareP is one book. We thereby can only map (15a) to the following LF: [ DistP Each / every boy [ DIST [ ShareP one book [ [ NegP not [ read ] 3.2 Some Contrasts Between Every and Each (17) Modification by Almost a. Dave ate almost twenty apples. b. Dave ate almost no apples. c. Dave ate almost all the apples. d. Dave ate almost every apple. e. * Dave ate almost each apple. (18) Generalization Every has a function of pure universality that each lacks. That is, the meaning of every seems to be inherently connected with exhaustificiation. Thus, every can designate the end point of a scale, and so combine with almost. This property might also be related to the following fact: 1 (19) Modification by Not a. Not all the boys ate ice cream. b. Not every boy ate ice cream. c. * Not each boy ate ice cream. 1 Please bear in mind that I m attempting to paraphrase here Beghelli & Stowell s own discussion. I don t myself clearly see how (19) is related to the generalization in (18). 7

9 (26) Explanation a. For Fact in (25b): Each book must appear in SpecDistP. Thus, something must appear in SpecShareP. For reasons mentioned above, this can t be not, which has to stay in SpecNegP. Thus, the only thing that can be in SpecShareP is one boy. Thus, we can only map (25b) to the following LF: [ DistP Each book [ DIST [ ShareP one boy [ [ NegP not [ read ] b. For Fact in (25a) Every book doesn t always bear the [+DIST] feature, and so needn t raise to SpecDistP. Thus, we can map sentence (25a) to the following LF: [ AgrS one boy [ NegP not [ AgrO every book [ read ] (27) Burning, Unanswered Question What about the facts in (13) and (15), which suggested that every NP does have to move in to DistP, above negation? 4. Farkas (1997) Dependent Indefinites The main focus of Farkas s paper are so-called dependent indefinites, which are indefinites that seem to require that they be interpreted in the scope of another operator. At one point, Farkas considers whether the inverse to this ever occurs, whether there are any quantificiational operators that require some other operator to be in their scope. Farkas proposes that each NP in English might be such a case, noting the (alleged) contrast between sentences like (28a) and (28b). (28) Every NP Needs An Indefinite in Its Scope? a. Each child owns a book. b. * Each child is intelligent. c. Each child jumped. Farkas proposes that the existential operator over Davidsonian event arguments might satisfy this requirement of each NP, as the contrast between (29c) and (28b) indicates. Unfortunately, this proposal is not fully worked out or formalized by Farkas, but one can see affinities between it and the syntactic proposals of Beghelli & Stowell (1997). 9

10 5. Tunstall (1998) Distributivity and Differentiation: Each and Every More than any work since Vendler (1967), Tunstall (1998) focuses on some apparent differences in the truth-conditions of sentences containing every and each. Tunstall s discussion is relatively informal, but she makes a number of tantalizing observations and generalizations, ones that seem amenable to formal treatment (29) The Distinction Between Partially Distributive and Completely Distributive Tunstall begins by introducing a distinction between partially distributive and completely distributive events. She does not offer a formal definition of these terms, but from her informal examples, it seems rather clear what she intends a. Sentence: Mary lifted the packages. b. Collective Scenario: All the packages lifted at once. Liftings Agent Theme e 1 Mary p 1 + p 2 + p 3 + p 4 + p 5 c. Partially Distributive Scenario: All the packages were not lifted at once, but some were. Liftings Agent Theme e 1 Mary p 1 + p 2 + p 3 e 2 Mary p 4 + p 5 d. Completely Distributive Scenario: The packages were lifted one by one. Liftings Agent Theme e 1 Mary p 1 e 2 Mary p 2 e 3 Mary p 3 e 4 Mary p 4 e 5 Mary p 5 (30) First Key Claim: The Event Distributivity Condition A sentence containing a DP headed by every can be true of event structures that are at least partially distributive. 10

11 (31) Second Key Claim: The Differentiation Condition A sentence containing a DP headed by each can only be true of event structures that are completely distributive. (32) Some Evidence: Ability to Combine with But Not Individually a. (i) Ricky weighed every apple from the basket, but not individually. (ii)?? Ricky weighed each apple from the basket, but not individually. b. (i) Jake photographed every child, but not individually. (ii)?? Jake photographed each child, but not individually. c. Explanation: The phrase but not individually rules out a completely distributive event structures like the following. Thus, not individually is incompatible with each, but not every Weighings Agent Theme Photographings Agent Theme e 1 Ricky apple 1 e 1 Jake kid 1 e 2 Ricky apple 2 e 2 Jake kid 2 e 3 Ricky apple 3 e 3 Jake kid 3 (33) Some Further Evidence a. Sentence: Carol mashed each potato. b. Scenarios: (i) Mashings at Different Times: Carol mashed the potatoes one after the other. (ii) (iii) Mashings at Different Locations, Same Time: Carol arrayed the potatoes in a line. Then, using a board, she mashed them all simultaneously. Mashing at Same Time, Location Carol dumped a bowl of potatoes into a food processor and his Start. c. Judgment: Sentence (33a) is a felicitious description of (i) and (ii), but not (iii) d. Explanation: Only in (i) and (ii) are there (salient) subevents of mashing for each potato. 11

13 (38) A Further Puzzle: Descriptions of Processes versus Resulting States a. (i) Carol mashed each potato. (ii)?? Carol cooked each potato. b. (i) The trainer carried each bag to the locker room. (ii)?? The trainer filled up each bag. c. (i) Terry photographed each lampshade. (ii)?? Terry destroyed each lampshade. d. Discussion: Given its semantics, each describes how a particular (complex) event comes into being (i.e., via distinct sub-events for each of a set of participants). Thus, each will be most natural in those contexts where the process component of an event is of most importance / relevance. In the (i)-sentences, the verb s semantics includes a kind of manner component. o Thus, with these verbs, the process component of the event is made salient / relevant, and so use of each is felicitous. In the (ii)-sentences, the verb s semantics does not include any manner component; rather it just describes a resulting state. o Thus, with these verbs, the process component of the event is not salient / relevant, and so use of each is not felicitious. (39) Supporting Evidence? a.?? Terry destroyed each lampshade. b.?? Terry completely destroyed each lampshade c. Terry methodically destroyed each lampshade. Discussion: In (39c), the adverb methodically (unlike completely), provides a manner description. Thus, the process component of the event is made salient / relevant, and so each becomes felicitous. (40) Supporting Evidence? a. Ricky weighed each apple. b.?? Ricky took each apple. Discussion: This contrast, noticed by VanLehn (1978), may be due to the fact that there is a significant manner component to the meaning of weigh, but not that of take. 13

14 (41) An Additional Means for Making Subevents Salient: Secondary Predicates a. (i)?? Mary remembered each camper. (ii) Mary remembered each camper happy. b. (i)?? Each person left the room. (ii) Each person left the room happy. Discussion: When sentences like (41ai) and (41bi) are said out-of-the-blue, it might not be clear to listeners why the individual remembering and leaving events should be salient enough to warrant use of each. However, when the secondary predicates in (41aii) and (41bii) are added, this relays a property of those individuals that held during the event the property adds content to the subevents, thus making those events salient and part of our domain of events. (42) An Additional Means for Making Subevents Salient: Scope Over Indefinite a. (i)?? Rick took each apple. (ii) A clerk took each apple. b. (i)?? The trainer filled up each bag. (ii) A clerk filled up each bag. Discussion: As noted above, in the (i)-sentences, the individual subevents for each apple / bag are not usually salient in out-of-the-blue contexts. However, in the (ii)-sentence, each apple/bag is able to scope over the indefinite a clerk. Under this reading, each subevent contains a different clerk as the agent, which serves to differentiate those events and make each one salient. Supporting Evidence?: If the verbs in (42a)/(42b) are changed to ones that have a manner -component to their meaning, there is no longer a preference for wide scope of each NP. c. A clerk weighed each apple. (Narrow scope OK). 14

15 (43) Evidence from Questionnaire Study Tunstall (1998) reports a questionnaire study carried out with 38 UMass undergrads. Students were presented with a number of scenarios, akin to the following. a. Different Condition Max was writing a story about the uniforms that the workers at local stores had to wear. The new supermarket required their employees to wear a button-down shirt with a collar, but various colors were allowed. On Monday, the deli clerk had on a striped shirt, the cashier had on a floral shirt, (etc.). b. Same Condition Max was writing a story about the uniforms that the workers at local stores had to wear. The new supermarket had a very strict dress code. They required their employees to wear a white button-down shirt with a collar, a red tie, black pants (etc.) After each scenario, students were asked to select a sentence describing the scenario. The choice was always between a sentence with every and one with each. c. Target Sentence: When Max visited the store, he wrote down what ( every / each ) person was wearing. d. Predictions: In the different conditions, the individual persons are clearly differentiated according to their outfits. Thus, the individual subevents containing them are made salient. Thus, each should be possible / preferred. In the same conditions, the individual persons are not clearly differentiated. Thus, the subevents containing them are no salient, and so each should be dispreferred, resulting in a preference for every. d. Results: Predictions Supported! Each Every Diff. Condition 29 (76%) 9 (24%) Same Condition 14 (37%) 24 (63%) But note that in the different condition, there s more of a pressure to use each than there is to use every in the same condition 15

16 6. Concluding Summary Again, to my knowledge, there isn t much else on the syntax/semantics of each and how it might differ from that of every. There are definitely a few key generalizations that seem to pop out. (44) Some Generalizations With each NP, the quantification always has to be over some contextually salient set of NPs, and not over all NPs in the universe. o Put differently, every NP is OK in characterizing sentences (generics), but not each NP Every NP does seem to sometimes allow for collective readings; these aren t as possible for each NP. However, such readings do become more possible for each NP if the individual NPs are in some way made salient. a. Bill took every one of the apples. (can describe collective taking of the bushel) b. Bill took each one of the apples. (cannot describe collective taking) c. Each of the apples was taken. (can describe collective taking) Each NP but not every NP seems to carry a kind of obligatory pluractionality (modulo saliency conditions mentioned above) d. Every / *Each deputy rose at the same time. Every NP but not each NP can be modified by almost e. Almost every / *each boy showed up. Each NP but not every NP seems to require some quantifier in its scope (Beghelli & Stowell 1997, Farkas 1997) f. Every student was intelligent. g. * Each student was intelligent. 16

### Semantics and Generative Grammar. Quantificational DPs, Part 3: Covert Movement vs. Type Shifting 1

Quantificational DPs, Part 3: Covert Movement vs. Type Shifting 1 1. Introduction Thus far, we ve considered two competing analyses of sentences like those in (1). (1) Sentences Where a Quantificational

### C HAPT ER 4. 4.1 Distributivity

C HAPT ER 4 DIST RIB UTIVIT Y AND DIF F ERENT IATION: THE UNIVERSAL QUANT IF IERS EACH AND EV ERY Each and every are both universal quantifiers, in contrast to most, some, a few, etc. Sentences containing

### A Scope Freezing Effect with Negated Quantifiers Chris Collins September 2016

A Scope Freezing Effect with Negated Quantifiers Chris Collins September 2016 Abstract: I document a scope freezing effect found with negated quantifiers (distinct from the scope freezing effect discussed

### Bound and Referential Pronouns and Ellipsis. Heim and Kratzer Chapter 9

Bound and Referential Pronouns and Ellipsis Heim and Kratzer Chapter 9 1 9.1 Referential pronouns as free variables 2 9.1.1 Deictic versus anaphoric, referential versus bound-variable pronouns In traditional

### The compositional semantics of same

The compositional semantics of same Mike Solomon Amherst College Abstract Barker (2007) proposes the first strictly compositional semantic analysis of internal same. I show that Barker s analysis fails

### Summary, Discussion and Conclusions

7 Summary, Discussion and Conclusions 7.1 Introduction In the past four decades, children s non-adult-like understanding of quantified sentences has been explained in syntactic, semantic or pragmatic terms

### Ling 201 Syntax 1. Jirka Hana April 10, 2006

Overview of topics What is Syntax? Word Classes What to remember and understand: Ling 201 Syntax 1 Jirka Hana April 10, 2006 Syntax, difference between syntax and semantics, open/closed class words, all

### MSc Introduction to Syntax

MSc Introduction to Syntax Lecture 3: Predicates and arguments 1. Semantic predicates and arguments In the previous lectures we have seen that sentences have an internal structure and we discussed some

### Tense, Aspect and Aktionsart

Tense, Aspect and Aktionsart 1. The Semantics of Tense, Part 1: Tense Logic Overarching Question: What does tense morphology (in English) mean? What is the core semantic difference between the sentences

### Do we need Structured Question Meanings? Two Approaches to Questions

Do we need Structured Question Meanings? Manfred Krifka Humboldt-Universität & Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) Berlin http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x Two Approaches to Questions The

### Constituency. The basic units of sentence structure

Constituency The basic units of sentence structure Meaning of a sentence is more than the sum of its words. Meaning of a sentence is more than the sum of its words. a. The puppy hit the rock Meaning of

### Ling 130 Notes: English syntax

Ling 130 Notes: English syntax Sophia A. Malamud March 13, 2014 1 Introduction: syntactic composition A formal language is a set of strings - finite sequences of minimal units (words/morphemes, for natural

### Semantic criteria. Word classes. Word classes. Morphological and syntactic criteria

Word classes Semantic criteria Nouns denote entities. Givón (1984): Words that express time-stable concepts Verbs denote actions. Givón (1984): Words that express the least timestable concepts, e.g. events

### PÁZMÁNY PÉTER KATOLIKUS EGYETEM BÖLCSÉSZETTUDOMÁNYI KAR

PÁZMÁNY PÉTER KATOLIKUS EGYETEM BÖLCSÉSZETTUDOMÁNYI KAR DOKTORI DISSZERTÁCIÓ HALM TAMÁS THE GRAMMAR OF FREE-CHOICE ITEMS IN HUNGARIAN THESIS BOOKLET NYELVTUDOMÁNYI DOKTORI ISKOLA ELMÉLETI NYELVÉSZET MŰHELY

### Semantics and Generative Grammar. Common Nouns and Adjectives in Predicate Position 1

Common Nouns and Adjectives in Predicate Position 1 (1) The Lexicon of Our System at Present a. Proper Names: [[ Barack ]] = Barack b. Intransitive Verbs: [[ smokes ]] = [ λx : x D e. IF x smokes THEN

### Negation and Antonyms in Tlingit Seth Cable December 9, 2015

Negation and Antonyms in Tlingit Seth Cable December 9, 2015 1. The Basic Facts: Negation in Negative Antonyms If you crack open one of the dictionaries for Tlingit, you ll find that positive-negative

### Paraphrasing controlled English texts

Paraphrasing controlled English texts Kaarel Kaljurand Institute of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich kaljurand@gmail.com Abstract. We discuss paraphrasing controlled English texts, by defining

### Movement and Binding

Movement and Binding Gereon Müller Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig SoSe 2008 www.uni-leipzig.de/ muellerg Gereon Müller (Institut für Linguistik) Constraints in Syntax 4 SoSe 2008 1 / 35 Principles

### COMPARATIVES WITHOUT DEGREES: A NEW APPROACH. FRIEDERIKE MOLTMANN IHPST, Paris fmoltmann@univ-paris1.fr

COMPARATIVES WITHOUT DEGREES: A NEW APPROACH FRIEDERIKE MOLTMANN IHPST, Paris fmoltmann@univ-paris1.fr It has become common to analyse comparatives by using degrees, so that John is happier than Mary would

### Modal concord Conditionals Disjunction Superlative and comparative quantifiers. At least et al. Bart Geurts. Bart Geurts: At least et al.

At least et al. Bart Geurts The story in a nutshell Superlative quantifiers ( at least 7 wombats ) are quite different from comparative ones ( more than 6 opossums ). Superlative quantifiers are modal

### Clause Types. A descriptive tangent into the types of clauses

Clause Types A descriptive tangent into the types of clauses Clause = subject+predicate phrase Clause = subject+predicate phrase subject: the NP being assigned a property Clause = subject+predicate phrase

### Predicate Calculus. There are certain arguments that seem to be perfectly logical, yet they cannot be expressed by using propositional calculus.

Predicate Calculus (Alternative names: predicate logic, first order logic, elementary logic, restricted predicate calculus, restricted functional calculus, relational calculus, theory of quantification,

### MONOTONE AMAZEMENT RICK NOUWEN

MONOTONE AMAZEMENT RICK NOUWEN Utrecht Institute for Linguistics OTS Utrecht University rick.nouwen@let.uu.nl 1. Evaluative Adverbs Adverbs like amazingly, surprisingly, remarkably, etc. are derived from

### Modifiers. PHIL October 22, Adjectives... 1

Modifiers PHIL 43916 October 22, 2012 1. Adjectives... 1 1.1. Intersective adjectives 1.2. on-predicative adjectives 1.3. ubsective adjectives 2. Adverbs... 4 When it comes to the grammatical categories

### Negative quantifiers in Hungarian 1. Katalin É. Kiss

Negative quantifiers in Hungarian 1 Katalin É. Kiss Abstract This paper derives the properties of Hungarian se-pronouns from independently motivated assumptions, among them an adjunction theory of Q-raising

### P1. All of the students will understand validity P2. You are one of the students -------------------- C. You will understand validity

Validity Philosophy 130 O Rourke I. The Data A. Here are examples of arguments that are valid: P1. If I am in my office, my lights are on P2. I am in my office C. My lights are on P1. He is either in class

### The Syntax of Predicate Logic

The Syntax of Predicate Logic LX 502 Semantics I October 11, 2008 1. Below the Sentence-Level In Propositional Logic, atomic propositions correspond to simple sentences in the object language. Since atomic

### Propositional Logic. 1. Semantics and Propositions. LX Semantics September 19, 2008

Propositional Logic LX 502 - Semantics September 19, 2008 1. Semantics and Propositions Natural language is used to communicate information about the world, typically between a speaker and an addressee.

### Examining domain widening and NPI any 1 Ana Arregui University of Ottawa

Examining domain widening and NPI any 1 Ana Arregui University of Ottawa 1. Introduction This squib examines domain widening (DW) as used in the analysis of NPI any. Since Kadmon and Landman s (1993) influential

### The Basics. Definition: the study of linguistic meaning. Semantics is part of the grammar.

Semantics The Basics Definition: the study of linguistic meaning Semantics is part of the grammar. The Basics The meaning of a complex expression is determined by: the meanings of its parts, and the way

### Deep Structure and Transformations

Lecture 4 Deep Structure and Transformations Thus far, we got the impression that the base component (phrase structure rules and lexicon) of the Standard Theory of syntax generates sentences and assigns

### Morphology. classes. Nancy Kula

Morphology Word Structure: Words and word classes Nancy Kula Class 8: Words & word classes ( Radford et al. p125 139) 139) Class 9: Building words (Radford et al. p140 155) Class 10: Morphology across

### Appendix to Chapter 3 Clitics

Appendix to Chapter 3 Clitics 1 Clitics and the EPP The analysis of LOC as a clitic has two advantages: it makes it natural to assume that LOC bears a D-feature (clitics are Ds), and it provides an independent

### Sounds Like Like. Peter Lasersohn. University of Rochester. Abstract: It is argued that the verb sound is ambiguous between

Sounds Like Like Peter Lasersohn University of Rochester Abstract: It is argued that the verb sound is ambiguous between one reading where it denotes a two-place relation between individuals and properties,

### When the Present is all in the Past* Pranav Anand and Valentine Hacquard

When the Present is all in the Past* Pranav Anand and Valentine Hacquard 1. Introduction This paper is concerned with English sentences where a present tense embedded under a past tense need not refer

### Revised Version of Chapter 23. We learned long ago how to solve linear congruences. ax c (mod m)

Chapter 23 Squares Modulo p Revised Version of Chapter 23 We learned long ago how to solve linear congruences ax c (mod m) (see Chapter 8). It s now time to take the plunge and move on to quadratic equations.

### Early Morphological Development

Early Morphological Development Morphology is the aspect of language concerned with the rules governing change in word meaning. Morphological development is analyzed by computing a child s Mean Length

### Estudios de Asia y Africa Idiomas Modernas I What you should have learnt from Face2Face

Estudios de Asia y Africa Idiomas Modernas I What you should have learnt from Face2Face 1A Question Forms 1.1 Yes-No Questions 1. If the first verb is an auxiliary verb, just move it in front of the Subject:

### DIVINE CONTINGENCY Einar Duenger Bohn IFIKK, University of Oslo

DIVINE CONTINGENCY Einar Duenger Bohn IFIKK, University of Oslo Brian Leftow s God and Necessity is interesting, full of details, bold and ambitious. Roughly, the main question at hand is: assuming there

### THE ENGLISH SENTENCE

THE ENGLISH SENTENCE (Materials based on: Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.K. (Eds.)., 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. London: CUP and Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. 1990. A Student's Grammar

### English Grammar. A Short Guide. Graham Tulloch

English Grammar A Short Guide Graham Tulloch This book was prepared in the English Discipline of the Flinders University of South Australia and printed by Flinders Press. 1990 Graham Tulloch FURTHER READING

### Cross-linguistic differences in the interpretation of sentences with more than one QP: German (Frey 1993) and Hungarian (É Kiss 1991)

Cross-linguistic differences in the interpretation of sentences with more than one QP: German (Frey 1993) and Hungarian (É Kiss 1991) 1. Quantifier Scope in English (May 1977, 1985) Predictions of May

### 3. Predicates and Quantifiers

3. PREDICATES AND QUANTIFIERS 45 3. Predicates and Quantifiers 3.1. Predicates and Quantifiers. Definition 3.1.1. A predicate or propositional function is a description of the property (or properties)

### 3. Mathematical Induction

3. MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION 83 3. Mathematical Induction 3.1. First Principle of Mathematical Induction. Let P (n) be a predicate with domain of discourse (over) the natural numbers N = {0, 1,,...}. If (1)

### Covert Distributivity in Algebraic Event Semantics

Covert Distributivity in Algebraic Event Semantics Lucas Champollion May 28, 2014 Abstract I suggest that distributivity operators are parametric on thematic roles and, in certain cases, on salient predicates

### A Short Course in Logic Example 8

A Short ourse in Logic xample 8 I) Recognizing Arguments III) valuating Arguments II) Analyzing Arguments valuating Arguments with More than one Line of Reasoning valuating If then Premises Independent

### The Basics of Syntax. Supplementary Readings. Introduction. Lexical Categories. Phrase Structure Rules. Introducing Noun Phrases. Some Further Details

The following readings have been posted to the Moodle course site: Language Files: Chapter 5 (pp. 194-198, 204-215) Language Instinct: Chapter 4 (pp. 74-99) The System Thus Far The Fundamental Question:

### Each vs. Jeweils: A Cover-Based View on Distance Distributivity

Each vs. Jeweils: A Cover-Based View on Distance Distributivity Lucas Champollion New York University 10 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003 champollion@nyu.edu Abstract. Zimmermann (2002) identifies

### Plural Type Quantification Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 1999

Plural Type Quantification Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 1999 Yoad Winter Technion This paper introduces some of the main components of a novel type theoretical semantics for quantification with

### Truth Conditional Meaning of Sentences. Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg

Truth Conditional Meaning of Sentences Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg. 69-87 Meaning of Sentences A sentence can be true or false in a given situation or circumstance. (1) The pope talked to

### 3.1 Grammatical Units

Lengua Inglesa II 2009-2010 Topic 3: Grammatical Units Subtopic 1: Units and Boundaries Subtopic 2: The Noun Phrase Mick O Donnell VI-bis 302 michael.odonnell@uam.es 1. Units and rank scale Unit: any stretch

### A Semantic Logic for Decoding Generic Meaning of Nouns for Automatic Text Processing

A Semantic Logic for Decoding Generic Meaning of Nouns for Automatic Text Processing Sung Young Lee 1, Eun Sok Bae 1 Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, 130-791, Seoul, Korea

### AnInterval-Based Semantics for Degree Questions: Negative Islands and Their Obviation

AnInterval-Based Semantics for Degree Questions: Negative Islands and Their Obviation Márta Abrusán and Benjamin Spector InstitutJean-Nicod(CNRS,Paris) and Harvard University Introduction The goal of this

### There are differences in constituent ordering within the determiner phrase (DP) between

There are differences in constituent ordering within the determiner phrase (DP) between English and Romance language though they are head-initial languages. The noun (N) is in the right edge within the

### Syntax II, Handout #4 Universität Stuttgart, SOSES 2006 Winfried Lechner Wed , Room 11.71

Syntax II, Handout #4 Universität Stuttgart, SOSES 2006 Winfried Lechner Wed 14.00-15.30, Room 11.71 VERB CLASSES 1. CONTROL VS. RAISING VERBS The distinction between raising and control verbs is not always

### WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT?

WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? introduction Many students seem to have trouble with the notion of a mathematical proof. People that come to a course like Math 216, who certainly

### Infinitive verbs are common in child speech, crosslinguistically. She sleeps. (Jens [Da] 2;0) Little baby sleep. (Daniel [Fr] 1;11)

CAS LX 500 Topics: Language acquisition Spring 2010, January 21 2b. Root infinitives 1 Root infinitives 1.1 Properties of root infinitives Root infinities in the world Infinitive verbs are common in child

### I have eaten. The plums that were in the ice box

in the Sentence 2 What is a grammatical category? A word with little meaning, e.g., Determiner, Quantifier, Auxiliary, Cood Coordinator, ato,a and dco Complementizer pe e e What is a lexical category?

### UNBOUND ANAPHORIC PRONOUNS: E-TYPE, DYNAMIC, AND STRUCTURED-PROPOSITIONS APPROACHES

FRIEDERIKE MOLTMANN UNBOUND ANAPHORIC PRONOUNS: E-TYPE, DYNAMIC, AND STRUCTURED-PROPOSITIONS APPROACHES ABSTRACT. Unbound anaphoric pronouns or E-type pronouns have presented notorious problems for semantic

### Contrasting English and German Grammar: An Introduction to Syntax and Semantics

Brochure More information from http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2853521/ Contrasting English and German Grammar: An Introduction to Syntax and Semantics Description: This book offers an introduction

### Building Blocks of Grammar

TEACHING & LEARNING TOOLKIT Building Blocks of Grammar Parts of Speech and Grammatical Categories Produced by Central Michigan University s Quality Initiative and Center for Excellence in Teaching and

### Predicate Logic. M.A.Galán, TDBA64, VT-03

Predicate Logic 1 Introduction There are certain arguments that seem to be perfectly logical, yet they cannot be specified by using propositional logic. All cats have tails. Tom is a cat. From these two

### Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites? 1

1 Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites? 1 Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts at Amherst March 1997 1. The starting point: Fodor and Sag My story begins with a famous example

### Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1. Topic of the dissertation

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Topic of the dissertation The topic of the dissertation is the relations between transitive verbs, aspect, and case marking in Estonian. Aspectual particles, verbs, and case

### Bare NPs: Kind-referring, Indefinites, Both, or Neither?

Bare NPs: Kind-referring, Indefinites, Both, or Neither? Manfred Krifka Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin 1. Generally shared assumption about Genericity

### Developing a Mobile Application Performance Management Strategy

Developing a Mobile Application Performance Management Strategy Whitepaper Evidant Inc., www.evidant.com (949) 609-1494 Preface Mobile has rapidly become the new battleground for acquisition and retention

### Quantifier Scope in Formal Linguistics

Quantifier Scope in Formal Linguistics E.G. Ruys Utrecht University Yoad Winter Technion/Utrecht University To appear in D. Gabbay (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic Second Edition 1. Introduction

### Cambridge English: Proficiency (CPE) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Cambridge English: Proficiency (CPE) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Is there a wordlist for Cambridge English: Proficiency exams? No. Examinations that are at CEFR Level B2 (independent user), or above

### English auxiliary verbs

1. Auxiliary verbs Auxiliary verbs serve grammatical functions, for this reason they are said to belong to the functional category of words. The main auxiliary verbs in English are DO, BE and HAVE. Others,

### Freedom of Word Order and Domains for Movement: A flexible syntax of Hungarian. Akadémiai Doktori Értekezés. Surányi Balázs

Freedom of Word Order and Domains for Movement: A flexible syntax of Hungarian Akadémiai Doktori Értekezés Surányi Balázs Budapest 2010 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Flexibility of word order in Minimalism

### 2. SEMANTIC RELATIONS

2. SEMANTIC RELATIONS 2.0 Review: meaning, sense, reference A word has meaning by having both sense and reference. Sense: Word meaning: = concept Sentence meaning: = proposition (1) a. The man kissed the

### 3. Logical Reasoning in Mathematics

3. Logical Reasoning in Mathematics Many state standards emphasize the importance of reasoning. We agree disciplined mathematical reasoning is crucial to understanding and to properly using mathematics.

### 19. Morphosyntax in L2A

Spring 2012, April 5 Missing morphology Variability in acquisition Morphology and functional structure Morphosyntax in acquisition In L1A, we observe that kids don t always provide all the morphology that

### PS I TAM-TAM Aspect [20/11/09] 1

PS I TAM-TAM Aspect [20/11/09] 1 Binnick, Robert I. (2006): "Aspect and Aspectuality". In: Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds). The Handbook of English Linguistics. Malden, MA et al.: Blackwell Publishing,

### AP PSYCHOLOGY 2007 SCORING GUIDELINES

AP PSYCHOLOGY 2007 SCORING GUIDELINES Question 1 Ellie, a new student at Skinner High School, is determined to make friends. When she attends the first psychology club meeting she finds herself in the

### CONTEXT AND LOGICAL FORM

JASON STANLEY CONTEXT AND LOGICAL FORM ABSTRACT. In this paper, I defend the thesis that all effects of extra-linguistic context on the truth-conditions of an assertion are traceable to elements in the

### POSITIVE POLARITY ITEMS:

POSITIVE POLARITY ITEMS: AN ALTERNATIVE BASED ACCOUNT ANDREEA CRISTINA NICOLAE Harvard University 1 Introduction The focus of this paper is on the polarity sensitive indefinite someone, whose distribution

### ENGLISH GRAMMAR Elementary

ENGLISH GRAMMAR Elementary A cura di NADIA TOSI Centro IDA ITE Enrico Tosi Busto Arsizio CONTENTS DEFINITE ARTICLES 3 INDEFINITE ARTICLES 3 PERSONAL PRONOUNS SUBJECTS 4 PLURALS. 5 POSSESSIVE ADJECTIVES

### Module 10. Coding and Testing. Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur

Module 10 Coding and Testing Lesson 23 Code Review Specific Instructional Objectives At the end of this lesson the student would be able to: Identify the necessity of coding standards. Differentiate between

### Last time we had arrived at the following provisional interpretation of Aquinas second way:

Aquinas Third Way Last time we had arrived at the following provisional interpretation of Aquinas second way: 1. 2. 3. 4. At least one thing has an efficient cause. Every causal chain must either be circular,

### What is logic? Propositional Logic. Negation. Propositions. This is a contentious question! We will play it safe, and stick to:

Propositional Logic This lecture marks the start of a new section of the course. In the last few lectures, we have had to reason formally about concepts. This lecture introduces the mathematical language

### THE WINDOWS AZURE PROGRAMMING MODEL

THE WINDOWS AZURE PROGRAMMING MODEL DAVID CHAPPELL OCTOBER 2010 SPONSORED BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION CONTENTS Why Create a New Programming Model?... 3 The Three Rules of the Windows Azure Programming Model...

### From Logic to Montague Grammar: Some Formal and Conceptual Foundations of Semantic Theory

From Logic to Montague Grammar: Some Formal and Conceptual Foundations of Semantic Theory Syllabus Linguistics 720 Tuesday, Thursday 2:30 3:45 Room: Dickinson 110 Course Instructor: Seth Cable Course Mentor:

### L130: Chapter 5d. Dr. Shannon Bischoff. Dr. Shannon Bischoff () L130: Chapter 5d 1 / 25

L130: Chapter 5d Dr. Shannon Bischoff Dr. Shannon Bischoff () L130: Chapter 5d 1 / 25 Outline 1 Syntax 2 Clauses 3 Constituents Dr. Shannon Bischoff () L130: Chapter 5d 2 / 25 Outline Last time... Verbs...

### Phil 420: Metaphysics Spring 2008. [Handout 4] Hilary Putnam: Why There Isn t A Ready-Made World

1 Putnam s Main Theses: 1. There is no ready-made world. Phil 420: Metaphysics Spring 2008 [Handout 4] Hilary Putnam: Why There Isn t A Ready-Made World * [A ready-made world]: The world itself has to

### CAS LX 500 A1 Language Acquisition

CAS LX 500 A1 Language Acquisition Week 4a. Root infinitives, null subjects and the UCC Root infinitives vs. time Here are those Danish graphs again. Ooo. Consistent. Syntax at age two Root infinitives

### SYNTAX. Syntax the study of the system of rules and categories that underlies sentence formation.

SYNTAX Syntax the study of the system of rules and categories that underlies sentence formation. 1) Syntactic categories lexical: - words that have meaning (semantic content) - words that can be inflected

### Introduction to Predicate Logic. Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg

Introduction to Predicate Logic Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg. 113-141 Usefulness of Predicate Logic for Natural Language Semantics While in propositional logic, we can only talk about sentences

### 6 Predication Predication in a sentence

6 Predication Predication in a sentence The content words in a sentence predicate on referents in a particular context of utterance if the sentence is true in this context. [[ DP Ben ] [ [ V gave] [ DP

### 1. This question paper consists of TWO sections: QUESTION 1: Comprehension (20) QUESTION 2: Language (10) QUESTION 3: Multiple Choice Questions (50)

CAMI Education (Pty) Ltd Reg. No. 1996/017609/07 CAMI House Fir Drive, Northcliff P.O. Box 1260 CRESTA, 2118 Tel: +27 (11) 476-2020 Fax : 086 601 4400 web: www.camiweb.com e-mail: info@camiweb.com ENGLISH

### CHAPTER 3. Methods of Proofs. 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs

CHAPTER 3 Methods of Proofs 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs 1.1. Basic Terminology. An axiom is a statement that is given to be true. A rule of inference is a logical rule that is used to deduce

### Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering. Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson

Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson October 1996 Chapter 1 Logic Lecture no. 1. We introduce the concept of a proposition, which is a statement

NO ^US 39:2 (2005) 256 283 A Puzzle about Ontology THOMAS HOFWEBER University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1 Ontology Ontology is the philosophical discipline that tries to find out what there is:

### CS4025: Pragmatics. Resolving referring Expressions Interpreting intention in dialogue Conversational Implicature

CS4025: Pragmatics Resolving referring Expressions Interpreting intention in dialogue Conversational Implicature For more info: J&M, chap 18,19 in 1 st ed; 21,24 in 2 nd Computing Science, University of

### Introduction to Semantics. A Case Study in Semantic Fieldwork: Modality in Tlingit

A Case Study in Semantic Fieldwork: Modality in Tlingit In this handout, I ll walk you step-by-step through one small part of a semantic fieldwork project on an understudied language: Tlingit, a Na-Dene

### Types of degrees and types of event structures

PATRICK CAUDAL AND DAVID NICOLAS Types of degrees and types of event structures In this paper, we investigate how certain types of predicates should be connected with certain types of degree scales, and

Triad Essay *Learned about myself as a Teacher* Through doing the triads, I learned a lot more than I thought about my teaching. I was surprised to see how hard it is not to jump in and tell someone the

### Math 3000 Running Glossary

Math 3000 Running Glossary Last Updated on: July 15, 2014 The definition of items marked with a must be known precisely. Chapter 1: 1. A set: A collection of objects called elements. 2. The empty set (