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

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.676
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.831

CiteScore 2016: 0.52

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.662
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.573

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 34, Issue 2 (Oct 2017)

Issues

Measure constructions with relative measures: Towards a syntax of non-conservative construals

Dorothy Ahn / Uli SauerlandORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2175-535X
Published Online: 2017-05-11 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0001

Abstract

Relative measures such as percent and thirds relate one quantity to another. We observe that, in several languages, determiner phrases containing relative measures can express two distinct construals: (1) The ‘conservative’ construal in The company hired 75 % of the women considers the ratio of the company’s female hires to all women. (2) The ‘non-conservative construal’ in The company hired 75 % women is instead concerned with the ratio of the company’s female hires to all the company’s hires. We show that other languages that distinguish the two construals using morphosyntactic means include German, Korean, Georgian, Greek, French, Italian, Brazilian Portuguese, and Romanian. We argue that the non-conservative construal involves a different constituency of the measure construction. Both construals, however, derive from a structure where the measure structure forms a single DP. Therefore, our analysis of the non-conservative structures makes an argument that the Conservativity Universal may apply at an abstract level of structure rather than at the surface level.

Keywords: quantification; measurement; relations; fractions; conservativity; universals; copy theory; pseudo-partitive

References

  • Ahn, Dorothy. 2012. Reverse quantification in Korean. Term paper, Harvard University.

  • Ahn, Dorothy & Uli Sauerland. 2015a. Non-conservative quantification with proportional quantifiers: Crosslinguistic data. In Thuy Bui & Deniz Ozyildiz (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 45, Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Ahn, Dorothy & Uli Sauerland. 2015b. The grammar of relative measurement. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25. 125–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Aoun, Joseph & Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159–219.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Beck, Sigrid & Shin-sook Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6. 339–384.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Susi Wurmbrand. 2012. Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the 3/4 signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 371–421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cheng, Lisa L-S & Rint Sybesma. 2009. De as an underspecified classifier: First explorations. Yuyánxué lùncóng 39. 123–156.Google Scholar

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6. 339–405.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Choe, Hyon Sook. 2009. On left-branch extraction (lbe) and left-branch condition (lbc) effects. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 45(2). 27–42. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Doetjes, Jenny Sandra. 1997. Quantifiers and selection. Leiden, Netherlands: University of Leiden dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1887/19731.

  • Fortuny, Jordi. 2016. The witness set constraint. Journal of Semantics doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 63–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, Danny & Kyle Johnson. 2016. QR is restrictor sharing. In Proceedings of WCCFL 33. 1–16.Google Scholar

  • Grestenberger, Laura. 2015. Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18. 1–46.Google Scholar

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Hankamer, Jorge & Line Mikkelsen. 2008. Definiteness marking and the structure of Danish pseudopartitives. Journal of Linguistics 44(2). 317–346.Google Scholar

  • Ionin, Tania, Ora Matushansky & Eddy G. Ruys. 2006. Parts of speech: Toward a unified semantics for partitives. Proceedings of NELS 36. 357–370.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1927. The philosophy of grammar. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Keenan, Edward L. & Jonathan Stavi. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 253–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, Sun-Woong. 2011. A note on NP/DP parameter: Left branch extraction in Korean. Linguistic Research 28. 257–269.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntactic edges and linearization. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1989a Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch et al. (eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. 75–116.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1989b. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Munich, Germany: W. Fink.Google Scholar

  • Ladusaw, Bill. 1982. Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction. In Daniel P. Flickinger, Marlys Macken & Nancy Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 1, 231–242. Stanford, CA: CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar

  • Li, Haoze. 2016. Event-related relative measurements. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung 21, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

  • Ott, Dennis. 2012. Local instability: Split topicalization and quantifier float in German. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ott, Dennis. 2015. Symmetric merge and local instability: Evidence from split topics. Syntax 18(2). 157–200.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Park, Yugyeong. 2007. A study on the semantic characteristics of the proportional quantifier floating in Korean. Seoul: Korea Seoul National University MA thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/10371/17762.

  • Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Geroen Groenendijk, Dik De Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in discourse representation and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Romoli, Jacopo. 2015. A structural account of conservativity. Semantics-Syntax Interface 2(1). 28–57.Google Scholar

  • Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rooth, Mats. 1995. Indefinites, adverbs of quantification, and focus semantics. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffrey Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, chap. 6, 265–299. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12. 63–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2014. Surface non-conservativity in German. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10, 125–142. CSSP Paris. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss10/.

  • Sauerland, Uli & Oliver Bott. 2002. Prosody and scope in German inverse linking constructions. In Speech Prosody, 623–626.Google Scholar

  • Schwarzschild, Roger. 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax 9(1). 67–110.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scontras, Gregory. to appear. Measure phrases. Semantics Companion.

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

  • Solt, Stephanie. 2016. Proportional comparatives and relative scales. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung 21, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2013. Bare numerals and scalar implicatures. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(5). 273–294.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stanley, Jason & Zoltan G. Szabo. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15. 219–261.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Takahashi, Shoichi & Sarah Hulsey. 2009. Wholesale Late Merger: Beyond the A/A-bar distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 387–426.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Von Fintel, Kai. 2016. A problem with Fortuny’s witness set constraint. Semanticsarchive (submitted to Journal of Semantics).

  • Yang, Byong-seon. 1991. Diagnostics for Unaccusativity in Korean: State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-05-11

Published in Print: 2017-10-26


This work was supported in part by BMBF Grant No. 01UG1411 and DFG grant SA 925/11-1.


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0001.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in