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
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, New York University, 10 Washington Pl, New York, NY 10012, USA
  • Email:
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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in