Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 22:2 (2021) ► pp.272–301

On reciprocal degree constructions

A view from Mandarin

| National Tsing Hua University

A degree sentence such as John and Mary are equally tall conveys both reciprocity and equivalence and hence are termed “Reciprocal Equatives” (RE). Building on Schwarz’s (2007) pioneer study, I suggest an account for this degree construction that covers a wider range of data. To the extent that the proposal is on the right track, it provides new support for building in plurality in the domain of degrees, an idea that has been put forward by Beck (2010; 2014) and Dotlačil & Nouwen (2016).

Keywords: reciprocal (in)equative, degree plurality, plural predication, tolerance of exceptions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Types of reciprocal equatives
    • 1.2Vagueness and context sensitivity
    • 1.3Roadmap
  • 2.Plural predication and degree plurality
    • 2.1Plural predication and covers
    • 2.2Plurality in the domain of degrees
  • 3.The semantics of REs
    • 3.1Universal and predicative REs
    • 3.2The plurality requirement of REs
  • 4.Covers, grouping and the interpretation of adnominal REs
    • 4.1The syntax and semantics of adnominal REs
    • 4.2Context sensitivity and covers
  • 5.Amount REs
  • 6.On reciprocal inequatives
  • 7.The alternative analysis
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 17 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00083.hsi
References
Alrenga, Peter & Kennedy, Christopher
2014  No more shall we part: Quantifiers in English comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 22(1). 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin
1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2). 159–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid
2000 The semantics of different: Comparison operator and relational adjective. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(2). 101–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9(1). 69–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Quantifiers in than-clauses. Semantics and Pragmatics 31. 1–72. (Article 1.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Lucinda driving too fast again – The scalar properties of ambiguous than-clauses. Journal of Semantics 30(1). 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Plural predication and quantified ‘than’-clauses. In Crnič, Luka & Sauerland, Uli (eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 11 (MITWPL 70), 91–115. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Brisson, Christine M.
1998 Distributivity, maximality, and floating quantifiers. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
2003 Plurals, all, and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(2). 129–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Champollion, Lucas
2016 Ten men and women got married today: Noun coordination and the intersective theory of conjunction. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 561–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren
1968 A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Liping
2005  Dou-(dis)harmony in Chinese. In Bateman, Leah & Ussery, Cherlon (eds.), NELS 35: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 11, 127–142. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
2008 Dou: Distributivity and beyond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen
1995 On dou-quantification. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(3). 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1998a Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 70), 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4). 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
2004 Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4). 393–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dotlačil, Jakub & Nouwen, Rick
2016 The comparative and degree pluralities. Natural Language Semantics 24(1). 45–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzgibbons, Natalia & Sharvit, Yael & Gajewski, Jon
2008 Plural superlatives and distributivity. In Friedman, Tova & Ito, Satoshi (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 18), 302–318. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon
2002 On analyticity in natural language. Cambridge: MIT. (Manuscript.) ([URL]) (Accessed 2020-09-01.)
Hackl, Martin
2000 Comparative quantifiers. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
2006 Little. In Gibson, Masayuki & Howell, Jonathan (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 16), 35–58. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998 Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, Shi-Zhe
1996 Quantification and predication in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of dou. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Križ, Manuel
2016 Homogeneity, non-maximality, and all . Journal of Semantics 33(3). 493–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter
1999 Pragmatic halos. Language 75(3). 522–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Thomas Hun-Tak
1986 Studies on quantification in Chinese. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-wang
1998 Distributivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics 6(2). 201–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 The adjective of quantity duo ‘many/much’ and differential comparatives in Mandarin Chinese. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(2). 163–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Link, Godehard
1983 The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, Rainer & Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora
2008 More of the same. (Paper presented at GLOW 31, Newcastle upon Tyne, 26–28 March 2008.)
Paris, Marie-Claude
2008 On parts of speech in Chinese: Gen . The Linguistic Review 25(3–4). 347–366.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Rooth, Mats
1983 Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Bäuerle, Rainer & Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 361–383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1997 Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4). 335–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica
2008 Degree modification in natural language. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Schwarz, Bernhard
2007 Reciprocal equatives. In McNally, Louise & Puig-Waldmüller, Estela (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 568–582. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
1996 Pluralities (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 61). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger & Wilkinson, Karina
2002 Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10(1). 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solt, Stephanie
2015 Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics 32(2). 221–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang
1998 Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics 6(3). 303–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, Yoad
1997 Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4). 399–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar