Attributive uses of 'many'

Maribel Romero

Abstract


In contrast to its determiner-like use, the attributive use of many has received little attention in the literature. The present paper narrows down the gap. First, just like ordinary superlative/positive adjectives and determiner-like many have received a unified account, a unified analysis is developed for reconstructed superlative/positive adjectives and reconstructed attributive many. In addition to the LFs independently motivated for reconstructed superlatives (Bhatt 2002; Hulsey & Sauerland 2006), an exhaustivity operator will be called for (cf. Chierchia, Fox & Spector (2012)), leading to nested foci. Second, the entire palette of readings attested for determiner-like many –cardinal vs. proportional, host-external vs. host-internal– will be shown to obtain for attributive many.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Beaver, David & Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjecti- val modification. Natural Language Semantics 10(1). 43–90.

Blizard, Wayne. 1989. Multiset theory. Notre Dame J. of Formal Logic 30. 36–66.

Carlson, Greg. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53. 520–542.

Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox & Benjamin Spector. 2012. Scalar implicatures as a

grammatical phenomenon. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Handbook of linguistics and communication science, 2297–2332. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cohen, Ariel. 2001. Relative readings of many, often and generics. NLS 69. 41–67.

Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Greer, Kristen. 2014. Extensionality in natural language quantification: the case of many and few. Linguistics and Philosophy 37(4). 315–351.

Grosu, Alexander & Manfred Krifka. 2007. The gifted mathematician that you claim to be; equationla intensional ‘reconstruction’ relatives. Linguistics and

Philosophy 30. 445–485.

Grosu, Alexander & Fred Landman. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6. 125–170.

Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative Quantifiers: MIT PhD dissertation.

Hackl, Martin. 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: Most versus More Than Half. Natural Language Semantics 17. 63–98.

Heim, Irene. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? evidence from the definiteness of variables. In Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The

Linguistic Representation of (In)definiteness, 21–42. Cambridge: MIT Press. Heim, Irene. 1999. Notes on Superlatives. MIT lecture notes.

Heim, Irene. 2006. Little. In M. Gibson & J. Howell (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 16, 35–58. Cornell University. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Herburger, Elena. 1997. Focus and weak noun phrases. Natural Language Semantics 5. 53–78.

Hulsey, Sarah & Uli Sauerland. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14(2). 111–137.

Lappin, Shalom. 1988. The semantics of "many" as a weak determiner. Linguistics 26. 977–998.

Pancheva, Roumyana & Barbara Tomaszewicz. 2012. Cross-linguistic differences in superlative movement out of nominal phrases. In N. Arnett & R. Bennett (eds.),

Proceedings of the WCCFL 30, 292–302. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Partee, Barbara H. 1989. Many quantifiers. In J. Powers & K. de Jong (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 383–402.

Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Penka, Doris. 2011. Negative Iindefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Penka, Doris. 2016. One many, many readings. Talk at Sinn und Bedeutung 21.

Romero, Maribel. 2015. The conservativity of many. In Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, 20–29. Amsterdam: ILLC.

Romero, Maribel. 2016. POS, -est and reverse readings of many and most. In C. Hammerly & B. Prickettto (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 46, 141–154. Amherst:

GLSA.

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

Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains: MIT PhD dissertation.

Schwarz, Bernhard. 2010. A note on for-phrases and derived scales. Talk at SuB 15.

Shimoyama, Junko. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in japanese and e-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8. 147–82.

Solt, Stephanie. 2009. The semantics of adjectives of quantity: CUNY PhD dissertation.

Solt, Stephanie. 2015. Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics 32. 221–273.

von Stechow, Arnim. 2009. The temporal degree adjectives früher/später ‘early(er)’/‘late(r)’ and the semantics of the positive. In A. Giannakidou & M. Rathert (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization, 214–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. In N. Fukui, T. Rapoport & E. Sagey (eds.), Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 245–265. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL 8.

Westerståhl, Dag. 1985. Logical constants in quantifier languages. L&P 8. 387–413.

Wilson, E. Cameron. 2015. Deriving the most internal relative reading. In P. Bere- zovskaya N. Bader & A. Schöller (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20,

–797. University of Tübingen semanticsarchive.net.

Wold, Dag E. 1996. Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. In Teresa Galloway & Justin Spence (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 6, 311–328. Cornell University. Ithaca, NY: C




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v27i0.4213