Cover not available
Part of
Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 281–304

Chapter 17
Inner aspect and the comparative quantifiers

| University of Potsdam | University of Niš
This paper discusses the behavior of undergoers involving comparative quantifiers with respect to the inner aspect of the eventuality. It departs from clashing results of telicity tests with such VPs. Arguments are provided for a version of the view proposed by Krifka (1998), namely that comparative quantifiers receive a higher scope, and do not contribute to the aspectual composition of the eventuality. Moreover, it is argued – coming somewhat close to Diesing (1992), Borer (2005), Kennedy and Levin (2008) and Arsenijević (2006b) – that all quantified undergoers are best modeled in terms of scalar semantics. It is also argued, building on Arsenijević (2006a), that the inner aspect of an event predicate is determined at the VP (event kind level).
Keywords: comparative quantifiers, inner aspect, telicity tests, event kinds
Article outline
  • 1.The big picture
  • 2.Comparative quantifiers and mereological approaches to aspect
  • 3.VPs with undergoers quantified by comparative quantifiers
  • 4.Progressives and comparatively quantified undergoers
  • 5.Definite descriptions
  • 6.Presupposition and contrastiveness do not explain the facts
  • 7.Other vague quantifiers
  • 8.Numeral quantification and telicity
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.17bob
References (33)
References
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English NP in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban. 2006a. Inner aspect and telicity. The decompositional and the quantificational nature of eventualities at the syntax-semantics interface. Utrecht: LOT Publication.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Event-Argument Homomorphism as a concord phenomenon. In Paul Dekker and Hedde Zeijlstra (eds.), Concord and the syntax semantics interface, 45–51. Malaga: ESSLLI.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Miloš. 2003. Generalized concepts of syntactically and semantically trivial differences and instant-based and period-based time ontologies. Journal of Applied Logic 1. 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beghelli, Filippo. 1994. Structured quantifiers, in Makoto Kanazawa and Christopher J. Piñon (eds.), Dynamics, polarity, and quantification, 119–145. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Manfred Bierwisch and Ewald Lang (eds.), Dimensional adjectives, 71–261. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell John. 1977. The semantics of degree. In Barbara Partee (ed.), Montague grammar, 261–292. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka and Henriëtte de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hackl, Martin. 2001. Comparative quantifiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of SALT X. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1987. Multiply-headed NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 481–491.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Larry Moss. 1985 Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural language. In Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Generalized quantifiers, 73–124. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1996. The semantics of determiners. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 41–63. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Dag Westerstahl. 1997. Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 837–893. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher and Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In Louise McNally and Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse, 156–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81. 345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Comparatives. In Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 673–691. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johann van Benthem, and Peter van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1973. Comparative constructions in English: A syntactic and semantic analysis. Rochester: University of Rochester dissertation.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 2013. On the criteria for distinguishing accomplishments from activities, and two types of aspectual misfits. In Boban Arsenijević, Berit Gehrke and Rafael Marin (eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates, 27–48. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1944. Grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11. 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1973. The comparative. In Ferenc Kiefer and Nicolas Ruwet (eds.), Generative grammar in Europe, 528–564. Dordrecht: Riedel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stechow, Arnim von. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3. 1–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vries, Mark de. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar