Cumulative readings of every do not provide evidence for events and thematic roles

An argument by Kratzer (2000) based on Schein (1986, 1993) does not conclusively show that events and thematic roles are necessary ingredients of the logical representation of natural language sentences. The argument claims that cumulative readings of every can be represented only with these ingredients. But scope-splitting accounts make it possible to represent cumulative readings of every in an eventless framework. Such accounts are motivated by obligatory reconstruction effects of every and by crosslinguistic considerations. Kratzer proposes that agent but not theme occurs in the logical representation of sentences because this allows her to model subject-object asymmetries in the distribution of cumulative every. But the reason for these asymmetries seems to be that every must be c-commanded by another quantifier in order to cumulate with it, no matter what its thematic role is. So the distribution of cumulative every does not provide support for Kratzer’s proposal

What are incremental themes?

In this paper I examine the approach to incremental themes developed in Krifka 1992,1998, Dowty 1991 and others, which argues that the extent of a telic event is determined by the extent of its incrementally affected theme. This approach identifies the defining property of an accomplishment event as being the fact that the theme relation is a homomorphism from parts of the event to parts of the (incremental) theme. I show that there are a large number of accomplishments, both lexical and derived via resultative predication, which cannot be characterised in this way. I then show that it is more insightful to characterise accomplishments in terms of their internally complex structure: an accomplishment event consists of a non-incremental activity event and an incrementally structured 'BECOME' event, which are related by a contextually available one-one function in such a way that the incremental structure of the latter is imposed on the activity

The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics

Davidsonian event semantics is often taken to form an unhappy marriage with compositional semantics. For example, it has been claimed to be problematic for semantic accounts of quantification (Beaver and Condoravdi, in: Aloni et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th Amsterdam Colloquium, 2007), for classical accounts of negation (Krifka, in: Bartsch et al. (eds.) Semantics and contextual expression, 1989), and for intersective accounts of verbal coordination (Lasersohn, in Plurality, conjunction and events, 1995). This paper shows that none of this is the case, once we abandon the idea that the event variable is bound at sentence level, and assume instead that verbs denote existential quantifiers over events. Quantificational arguments can then be given a semantic account, negation can be treated classically, and coordination can be modeled as intersection. The framework presented here is a natural choice for researchers and fieldworkers who wish to sketch a semantic analysis of a language without being forced to make commitments about the hierarchical order of arguments, the argument-adjunct distinction, the default scope of quantifiers, or the nature of negation and coordination

Weak islands, individuals, and scope

No abstract

Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics

It is by now a weIl-known topic in semantics that there are striking similarities between the meanings of nominal and verbal expressions, insofar as the mass:count distinction in the nominal domain is reflected in the atelic:telic distinction in the verbal domain (cf. Leisi 1953, Taylor 1977, Bach 1986, to cite just a few authors). However, these supposed similarities have not be made explicit in formal representations

Comprehending Each Other: Weak Reciprocity and Processing

This dissertation looks at the question of how comprehenders get from an underspecified semantic representation to a particular construal. Its focus is on reciprocal sentences. Reciprocal sentences, like other plural sentences, are open to a range of interpretations. Work on the semantics of plural predication commonly assumes that this range of interpretations is due to cumulativity (Krifka 1992): if predicates are inherently cumulative (Kratzer 2001), the logical representations of plural sentences underspecify the interpretation (rather than being ambiguous between various interpretations). The dissertation argues that the processor makes use of a number of general preferences and principles in getting from such underspecified semantic representations to particular construals: principles of economy in mental representation, including a preference for uniformity, and principles of natural grouping. It sees no need for the processor to make use of a principle like the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis (Dalrymple et al. 1998) in comprehending reciprocal sentences. Instead, they are associated with cumulative semantic representations with truth conditions equivalent to Weak Reciprocity (Langendoen 1978), as in Dotlačil (2010). Interpretations weaker than Weak Reciprocity (‘chain interpretations’) arise via a process of pragmatic weakening. Interpretations stronger than Weak Reciprocity may arise in different ways. Statives are seen as having special requirements regarding the naturalness or ‘substantivity’ of pluralities (Kratzer 2001), and this leads to stronger readings. In other cases, strong interpretations are favoured by a preference for uniformity, which is taken to be a type of economy preference. It is assumed that the processor need not commit to a fully spelled out construal, but may build mental models of discourse that themselves underspecify the relations that hold among individuals. While the dissertation’s focus is on reciprocal sentences, the same principles and preferences are argued to be involved in comprehending other plural sentences

Formal approaches to number in Slavic and beyond (Volume 5)

The goal of this collective monograph is to explore the relationship between the cognitive notion of number and various grammatical devices expressing this concept in natural language with a special focus on Slavic. The book aims at investigating different morphosyntactic and semantic categories including plurality and number-marking, individuation and countability, cumulativity, distributivity and collectivity, numerals, numeral modifiers and classifiers, as well as other quantifiers. It gathers 19 contributions tackling the main themes from different theoretical and methodological perspectives in order to contribute to our understanding of cross-linguistic patterns both in Slavic and non-Slavic languages

The Semantic Ontology of Agent and Theme: A Case Study with Event Partitioning Quantifiers in Japanese

The primary aim of this paper is a description of a previously unanalyzed kind of numeral quantifiers in Japanese. While the purpose is modest, I believe that it might shed light on the Neo-Davidsonian semantic architecture (see Parsons 1990, Schein 1993 and Kratzer 1996 among others). Specifically, I will introduce Event Partitioning Quantifiers (EPQs), which have not been analyzed in literature and show that with an EPQ, agents of events and themes of events are quantified independently of both an event expressed by a lexical verb and host nominals in the subject or in the object. Based on this observation, I discuss the semantic independence of thematic roles Agent and Theme from their corresponding verb

Papers on predicative constructions : Proceedings of the workshop on secundary predication, October 16-17, 2000, Berlin

This volume presents a collection of papers touching on various issues concerning the syntax and semantics of predicative constructions. A hot topic in the study of predicative copula constructions, with direct implications for the treatment of he (how many he's do we need?), and wider implications for the theories of predication, event-based semantics and aspect, is the nature and source of the situation argument. Closer examination of copula-less predications is becoming increasingly relevant to all these issues, as is clearly illustrated by the present collection

A unified account of distributivity, for-adverbials, and pseudopartitives

This paper presents a diagnostic for identifying distributive constructions and shows that it applies to pseudopartitives and for-adverbials. On this basis, a unified account is proposed for the parallels between the constructions involved. This account explains why for-adverbials reject telic predicates (*run to the store for five hours), why pseudopartitives reject count nouns (*five pounds of book), and why both reject certain measure functions like temperature and speed (*30 of water, *drive for 5 mph). These restrictions all follow from a general constraint on distributive constructions. Related concepts such as the D operator (Link, 1987), the subinterval property (Bennett and Partee, 1972), and divisive reference (Cheng, 1973) can be understood as formalizing special cases of this constraint