Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Strategies of Quantification$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Kook-Hee Gil, Stephen Harlow, and George Tsoulas

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199692439

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2013

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692439.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 12 December 2017

Strategies of Quantification in St'át'imcets and the Rest of the World

Strategies of Quantification in St'át'imcets and the Rest of the World

Chapter:
(p.15) 2 Strategies of Quantification in St'át'imcets and the Rest of the World
Source:
Strategies of Quantification
Author(s):

Lisa Matthewson

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692439.003.0002

Generalized Quantifier theory enables a compositional derivation of the meanings of quantified noun phrases. A semantic ‘determiner’ (instantiated in English, for example, by every or most) denotes a relation between sets (equivalently, a function of type 〈 〈e,t〉,〈 〈e,t〉,t〉 〉). It combines with a common noun phrase to create a Generalized Quantifier (such as most girls), which denotes a set of sets (a function of type 〈 〈e,t〉,t〉). This chapter addresses the topic which Barwise and Cooper themselves did not discuss, namely the internal compositionality of the semantic determiner. The chapter argues here that even setting aside complex quantifications like ‘more than half’, the function of the semantic determiner, namely to create a GQ from a common noun, is not a unitary or primitive process. Rather, GQ‐creation standardly involves at least two separate functions: quantification and domain restriction. This leads to a cross‐linguistic prediction, namely that we will find languages in which domain restriction is overtly expressed within the noun phrase via a separate lexical item. Furthermore, there are languages where the elements which effect domain restriction and quantification do not even form a syntactic constituent. The chapter thus argues that the notion of the ‘semantic determiner’ in Barwise and Cooper's sense may need to be retired, as it has outlived its cross‐linguistic usefulness. The chapter argues that we need to investigate the GQ‐internal syntax–semantics mapping in a large number of different languages, in order to determine what the range of possibilities is in this domain and where the interesting generalizations lie.

Keywords:   determiner, semantic determiner, choice function, generalized quantifier, St'at'imcets, partitive, definiteness, domain restriction, demonstrative, universal quantifier

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .