Abstract
Most studies of the so-called proportion problem seek to understand how lexical and structural properties of sentences containing adverbial quantifiers give rise to various proportional readings. This paper explores a related but distinct problem: given a use of a particular sentence in context, why do only some of the expected proportional readings seem to be available? That is, why do some sentences allow an asymmetric reading when other, structurally similar sentences seem to require a symmetric reading? Potential factors suggested in the literature include the distribution of donkey pronouns, certain uniqueness implications, and focus structures. I argue here that the use of an adverbial quantifier presupposes HOMOGENEITY: all individual situations that get lumped into a single case for the purposes of evaluating the quantification must agree on whether they satisfy the nuclear scope. For instance, in order for a token of Usually, if a farmer owns a donkey, he beats it to be felicitous when construed under a farmer-dominant asymmetric reading, the context must be consistent with the proposition that each farmer either beats all or none of his donkeys. Thus proportional sentences are indeed systematically ambiguous, but only some readings will be felicitous in a given context.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker, Chris: 1995, Possessive Descriptions, CSLI Publications, Stanford, Cal.
Bäuerle, Rainer and U. Egli: 1985, ‘Anapher, Nominalphrase und Eselssätze’, Papier 105 des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99, Universität Konstanz.
Chierchia, Gennaro: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15(2), 111–183.
Gawron, Jean Mark, JohnNerbonne and StanleyPeters: 1991, ‘The Absorption Principle and E-Type Anaphora’, in J. Barwise et al. (eds.), Situation Theory and Its Applications, vol. 2, CSLI Publications, Stanford, Cal.
Heim, Irene: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Heim, Irene: 1990, ‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177.
Jacobs, Joachim: 1991, ‘Focus Ambiguities’, Journal of Semantics 8, 1–36.
Kadmon, Nirit: 1987, On Unique and Non-unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kadmon, Nirit: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.
Kanazawa, Makoto: 1994, ‘Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting’, Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 109–158.
Kang, YoungEun Yoon: 1994, Weak and Strong Interpretations of Quantifiers and Definite NPs in English and Korean, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Kratzer, Angelika: 1989, ‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653.
Kratzer, Angelika: 1995, ‘Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates’, in G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 125–175.
Krifka, Manfred: 1992, ‘A Framework for Focus-Sensitive Quantification’, in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, OSUWPL vol. 40, Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, pp. 215–236.
Lewis, David: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–15.
Partee, Barbara: 1984, ‘Nominal and Temporal Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 243–286.
Roberts, Craige: 1995, ‘Domain Restriction in Dynamic Semantics’, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy vol. 54, Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp. 661–700.
Root, Rebecca: 1985, The Semantics of Anaphora in Discourse, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Rooth, Mats: 1987, ‘NP Interpretation in Montague Grammer, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 237–268.
Schubert, Lenhart K. and Francis Jeffry Pelletier: 1989, ‘Generically Speaking’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, vol. 2: Semantic Issues, pp. 193–268.
de Swart, Henriëtte: 1991, Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized Quantifier Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I gratefully acknowledge specific comments and advice from Jeroen Groenendijk, Irene Heim, Makoto Kanazawa, Angelika Kratzer, Manfred Krifka, Peter Lasersohn, Stanley Peters, Craige Roberts, Martin Stokhof, Henriëtte de Swart, and two anonymous referees.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barker, C. Presuppositions for proportional quantifiers. Nat Lang Seman 4, 237–259 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372821
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372821