The influence of tense in adverbial quantification

We argue that there is a crucial difference between determiner and adverbial quantification. Following Herburger [2000] and von Fintel [1994], we assume that determiner quantifiers quantify over individuals and adverbial quantifiers over eventualities. While it is usually assumed that the semantics of sentences with determiner quantifiers and those with adverbial quantifiers basically come out the same, we will show by way of new data that quantification over events is more restricted than quantification over individuals. This is because eventualities in contrast to individuals have to be located in time which is done using contextual information according to a pragmatic resolution strategy. If the contextual information and the tense information given in the respective sentence contradict each other, the sentence is uninterpretable. We conclude that this is the reason why in these cases adverbial quantification, i.e. quantification over eventualities, is impossible whereas quantification over individuals is fine

Generics in information structure: exceptions versus counterexamples

Why do we hold on to generic beliefs that serve explanations and our way of understanding the world, even if they run counter to facts or observational evidence with which they are incompatible? It often makes rational sense NOT to revise one’s belief, even if counterexamples abound, relegating them to the harmless status of exceptions, rather than disconfirming facts. Investigating the focus/background structure arising from the interaction between aspectual adverbs, tense and bare plurals requires an interface of all modules of grammar—the Information Structure—at which the content of statements with bare plurals in discourse can be determined in context and epistemological differences between exceptions and counterexamples are accounted for. Generic information is persistent in recalcitrant situations, because its explanatory force is “immunized” against counterevidence. “Immunization” of information against counterevidence is a new theoretical semantic concept given precise content in an epistemologically flavored semantics of generics.Pourquoi nous accrochons-nous aux croyances génériques qui nous servent à expliquer et comprendre le monde, même lorsqu’elles vont à l’encontre de faits ou d’observations évidentes avec lesquelles elles sont contradictoires ? Il est souvent rationnel de ne pas corriger ses croyances, même si les contre-exemples abondent, en reléguant ces derniers au statut d’exceptions anodines qui n’infirmeront pas les faits. L’étude de la structure focus/arrière-plan qui résulte de l’interaction entre les adverbes aspectuels, le temps et les pluriels nus nécessite une interface de tous les modules de la grammaire – la Structure Informationnelle – dans laquelle le contenu des énoncés avec pluriels nus peut être déterminé en contexte, et dans laquelle sont expliquées les différences épistémologiques entre exceptions et contre-exemples. Les informations génériques persistent dans les situations récalcitrantes parce que leur force explicative est « immunisée » contre les preuves contraires. Cette « immunisation » de l’information est un nouveau concept sémantique théorique dont nous précisons le contenu dans une sémantique des génériques qui emprunte à l’épistémologie

The interpretation and distribution of temporal focus particles

Among the scalar usages of only, there is one that has a temporal dimension. In Carla understood the problem only on Sunday, for instance, Sunday is considered late for Carla to have understood the problem. In this paper, we explore the interpretation and distribution of temporal only along with other focus particles that permit a temporal reading. We focus on the Dutch counterpart of temporal only, pas (see Barbiers 1995). This particle is formally distinct from both exclusive only (alleen) and non-temporal scalar only (maar). We concentrate on two core issues. The first concerns the observation that temporal focus particles systematically support two modes of interpretation, a purely temporal one and a lack-of-progress reading. The latter is found in an example like Billy has only read three books (so far), which implies that three is a low number of books for Billy to have read at the reference time. The second issue concerns ‘Barbiers’s Generalization,’ the requirement that temporal focus particles immediately c-command the category they interact with. We propose a semantic analysis that captures these observations, building on previous work by König (1979, 1981), Löbner (1989), Krifka (2000) and Klinedinst (2004), among others

Romanian adjectives at the syntax-semantics interface

In this paper, we argue for the existence of two local domains (phases, cf. Chomsky 2001; 2009; Legate 2003, among others) inside the DP: the n*-phase, parallel to the vP (as in Svenonius 2004), and the d*-phase, parallel to the CP. Two acknowledged phasal properties are discussed. (i) The n*/d*-phases define their own peripheries: peripheries are essentially modal-quantificational spaces, as shown by the decomposition of Topic—Focus features recently proposed (Butler 2004; McNay 2005; 2006). (ii) Phases are assumed to be domains of linearization: after (internal or external) merge, syntactic objects are hierarchical, but not linear, so phases must be linearized before they are sent to PF. The distribution and interpretation of DP-internal adjectives is taken to be indicative of these two domains

A grammar of Papuan Malay

This book presents an in-depth linguistic description of Papuan Malay, a non-standard variety of Malay. The language is spoken in coastal West Papua which covers the western part of the island of New Guinea. The study is based on sixteen hours of recordings of spontaneous narratives and conversations between Papuan Malay speakers, recorded in the Sarmi area on the northeast coast of West Papua. Papuan Malay is the language of wider communication and the first or second language for an ever-increasing number of people of the area. While Papuan Malay is not officially recognized and therefore not used in formal government or educational settings or for religious preaching, it is used in all other domains, including unofficial use in formal settings, and, to some extent, in the public media. After a general introduction to the language, its setting, and history, this grammar discusses the following topics, building up from smaller grammatical constituents to larger ones: phonology, word formation, noun and prepositional phrases, verbal and nonverbal clauses, non-declarative clauses, and conjunctions and constituent combining. Of special interest to linguists, typologists, and Malay specialists are the following in-depth analyses and descriptions: affixation and its productivity across domains of language choice, reduplication and its gesamtbedeutung, personal pronouns and their adnominal uses, demonstratives and locatives and their extended uses, and adnominal possessive relations and their non- canonical uses. This study provides a starting point for Papuan Malay language development efforts and a point of comparison for further studies on other Malay varieties

Temporal reasoning with aspectual adverbs

Departement Linguïstiek. Centrum voor Grammaticaal en lexicaal betekenisonderzoek. Onderzoeksgroep Nederlandse grammatica en taalgebruik.status: publishe