Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.864
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.744

CiteScore 2016: 0.72

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.555
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.105

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 41, Issue 3-4 (Oct 2015)


Stratified reference: the common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement

Lucas Champollion
Published Online: 2015-09-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2015-0008


Why can I tell you that I ran for five minutes but not that I *ran to the store for five minutes? Why can we talk about five pounds of books but not about *five pounds of book? What keeps you from saying *sixty degrees Celsius of water when you can say sixty inches of water? And what goes wrong when I complain that *all the ants in my kitchen are numerous? The constraints on these constructions involve concepts that are generally studied separately: aspect, plural and mass reference, measurement, distributivity, and collectivity. This paper provides a unified perspective on these domains and gives a single answer to the questions above in the framework of algebraic event semantics.

Keywords: algebraic semantics; aspect; boundedness; collectivity; distributivity; mass; measurement; mereology; monotonicity; plural; partitives; telicity


  • Akmajian, Adrian & Adrienne Lehrer. 1976. NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis 2(4). 395–413.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1). 5–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00627432.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bale, Alan. 2009. Yet more evidence for the emptiness of plurality. In A. Schardl, M. Walkow & M. Abdurrahman (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society (NELS 38), vol. 1, 75–88. Graduate Linguistics Student Association. Amherst, MA: University of Massachussetts.Google Scholar

  • Bale, Alan, Michaël Gagnon & Hrayr Khanjian. 2011. Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking. In N. Li & D. Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 20), 582–598. CLC Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2552.Crossref

  • Bennett, Michael R. & Barbara H. Partee. 1972. Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Tech. rep. System Development Corporation.

  • Champollion, Lucas. 2010. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Dissertation. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/958/.Google Scholar

  • Champollion, Lucas. 2014a. Covert distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Under revision. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002097.

  • Champollion, Lucas. 2014b. Overt distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Under revision. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002098.

  • Champollion, Lucas. to appear(a). Distributivity, collectivity and cumulativity. In L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann & T. E. Zimmermann (eds.), Wiley’s companion to semantics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002133.Google Scholar

  • Champollion, Lucas. to appear(b). Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Champollion, Lucas & Manfred Krifka. to appear. Mereology. In P. Dekker & M. Aloni (eds.), Cambridge handbook of semantics. Cambridge University Press. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002099.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. 104–131.Google Scholar

  • Crain, Stephen. 2011. Meaning in first language acquisition. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3 Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK), chap. 103, 2724–2752. Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110253382.2724.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Daubert, B. F. & T. H. Clarke. 1944. Unsaturated Synthetic Glycerides. VI. Polymorphism of Symmetrical Monoöleyldisaturated Triglycerides. Journal of the American Chemical Society 66(5). 690–691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja01233a008.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2014. Collective quantification and the homogeneity constraint. In M. Wiegand, T. Snider & S. D’Antonio (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 24), 453–472. LSA and CLC Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2428.Crossref

  • Doetjes, Jenny. 2007. Adverbs and quantification: Degrees versus frequency. Lingua 117(4). 685–720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.04.003.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ, vol. 7 Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978–94–009–9473–7.Google Scholar

  • Dowty, David R. 1987. Collective predicates, distributive predicates, and All. In F. Marshall (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 3), 97–115. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

  • Farkas, Donka F. & Henriëtte E. de Swart. 2010. The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(6). 1–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Filip, Hana. 2000. The quantization puzzle. In C. L. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as grammatical objects: the converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, 39–96. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Gärdenfors, Peter. 2007. Representing actions and functional properties in conceptual spaces. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev & R. M. Frank (eds.), Body language and mind, volume 1: Embodiment, 167–196. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110207507.2.167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gawron, Jean Mark. 2002. Two kinds of determiners in DP. Talk at LSA winter meeting.

  • Gawron, Jean Mark. 2005. Generalized paths. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 15). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~gawron/salt_paper.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Groenendijk, J., T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds.). 1984. Truth, interpretation and information: Selected papers from the Third Amsterdam Colloquium. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110867602.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guéron, Jacqueline. 1979. On the structure of “pseudo-partitive” NP’s. Bulletin of the ICU Summer Institute in Linguistics 12. 21–48.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Hinrichs, Erhard. 1985. A compositional semantics for Aktionsarten and NP reference in English. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Dissertation. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1272461401.Google Scholar

  • Hitzeman, Janet. 1991. Aspect and adverbials. In S. K. Moore & A. Z. Wyner (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 1), 107–126. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.2763.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hitzeman, Janet. 1997. Semantic partition and the ambiguity of sentences containing temporal adverbials. Natural Language Semantics 5(2). 107–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1008221528793.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ionin, Tania & Ora Matushansky. 2006. The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23(4). 315–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl006.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray S. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(2). 305–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00133686.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Until. In Papers from the 10th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 10), 283–297. Chicago, IL. http://web.stanford.edu/~laurik/publications/archive/until.pdf.

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 265–307. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Krantz, David H., R. Duncan Luce, Patrick Suppes & Amos Tversky. 1971. Foundations of measurement. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2007. On the plurality of verbs. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow & M. Schäfer (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 269–300. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449.269.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1986. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution: Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Munich, Germany (published 1989): Wilhelm Fink. http://amor.cms.hu–berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Publications/Krifka_1989_Nominalreferenz_Zeitkonstitution.PDF.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, vol. 70 Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 197–235. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kroch, Anthony S. 1974. The semantics of scope in English. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13020.Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, Jeremy. 2014. Gather-type predicates: massiness over participants. Presentation at the 45th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 45). http://www.jeremykuhn.net/papers/Kuhn-gather-slides.pdf.

  • Landman, Fred. 1989. Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 559–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00627774.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Landman, Fred. 1996. Plurality. In S. Lappin (ed.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 425–457. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Landman, Fred. 2004. Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470759318.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lasersohn, Peter. 1988. A semantics for groups and events. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Reiner Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 303–323. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302. Reprinted in Link (1998), Chapter 1.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Link, Godehard. 1991. Quantity and number. In D. Zaefferer (ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics, 133–149. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. Reprinted in Link (1998), Chapter 9.Google Scholar

  • Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://standish.stanford.edu.

  • Mills, I., T. Cvitaš, K. Homann, N. Kallay & K. Kuchitsu (eds.). 2007. Quantities, units and symbols in physical chemistry (IUPAC Green Book). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/9781847557889.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mollá-Aliod, Diego. 1997. Aspectual composition and sentence interpretation: A formal approach. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh dissertation. http://comp.mq.edu.au/~diego/publications/phd/thesis.ps.gz.Google Scholar

  • Moltmann, Friederike. 1991. Measure adverbials. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(6). 629–660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00631962.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moltmann, Friederike. 1997. Parts and wholes in semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Parsons, Terence. 1987. Underlying states in the semantical analysis of English. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, vol. 88, 13–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545070.

  • Rothstein, Susan. 2009. Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1(1). 106–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187666309x12491131130783.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scha, Remko. 1981. Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Mathematical Center Tracts. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110867602.131. Reprinted in Groenendijk et al. (1984), pages 131–158.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities, vol. 61 Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2704-4.Google Scholar

  • Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002. The grammar of measurement. In B. Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 12), Cornell University. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2870.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schwarzschild, Roger. 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax 9(1). 67–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scontras, Gregory. 2014. The semantics of measurement: Harvard University dissertation. http://web.stanford.edu/~scontras//papers/Scontras_Thesis.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Selkirk, Lisa. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 285–316. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1–2). 1–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/3.1–2.1.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 2002. German seit ‘since’ and the ambiguity of the German perfect. In I. Kaufmann & B. Stiebels (eds.), More than words. A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, 393–432. Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783050081274-016.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stickney, Helen. 2008. The emergence of DP in the partitive structure. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Dissertation. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3380028.Google Scholar

  • Syrett, Kristen. 2013. The role of cardinality in the interpretation of measurement expressions. Language Acquisition 20(3). 228–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2013.796949.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 2011. Cognitive semantics: An overview. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1 Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK), chap. 27, 622–642. de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.622.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Taylor, Barry. 1977. Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(2). 199–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00351103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2182371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wechsler, Stephen & Yae-Sheik Lee. 1996. The domain of direct case assignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(3). 629–664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00133600.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics: The interpretation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Zucchi, Sandro & Michael White. 2001. Twigs, sequences and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(2). 187–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1005690022190.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zwarts, Joost. 2006. Event shape: Paths in the semantics of verbs. Manuscript. Radboud University Nijmegen and Utrecht University. http://www.let.uu.nl/users/Joost.Zwarts/personal/EventShape.pdf.

  • Zwarts, Joost & Henk J. Verkuyl. 1994. An algebra of conceptual structure: an investigation into Jackendoff’s conceptual semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(1). 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00985039CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-09-29

Published in Print: 2015-10-01

Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2015-0008.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Asya Achimova, Kristen Syrett, Julien Musolino, and Viviane Déprez
Language Learning and Development, 2017, Volume 13, Number 1, Page 80
Brian Buccola and Benjamin Spector
Linguistics and Philosophy, 2016, Volume 39, Number 3, Page 151

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in