Skip to main content
Log in

Monotonicity and Collective Quantification

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article studies the monotonicity behavior of plural determinersthat quantify over collections. Following previous work, we describe thecollective interpretation of determiners such as all, some andmost using generalized quantifiers of a higher type that areobtained systematically by applying a type shifting operator to thestandard meanings of determiners in Generalized Quantifier Theory. Twoprocesses of counting and existential quantification thatappear with plural quantifiers are unified into a single determinerfitting operator, which, unlike previous proposals, both capturesexistential quantification with plural determiners and respects theirmonotonicity properties. However, some previously unnoticed factsindicate that monotonicity of plural determiners is not always preservedwhen they apply to collective predicates. We show that the proposedoperator describes this behavior correctly, and characterize themonotonicity of the collective determiners it derives. It is proved thatdeterminer fitting always preserves monotonicity properties ofdeterminers in their second argument, but monotonicity in the firstargument of a determiner is preserved if and only if it is monotonic inthe same direction in the second argument. We argue that this asymmetryfollows from the conservativity of generalized quantifiers innatural language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barwise, J. and Cooper, R., 1981, “Generalized quantifiers and natural language,” Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M., 1974, “Some extensions of a Montague fragment of English,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of California Los Angeles.

  • Chierchia, G., 1998, “Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of 'semantic parameter',” pp. 53–104 in Events and Grammar, S. Rothstein, ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Kim, Y., Mchombo, S., and Peters, S., 1998, “Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity,” Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 159–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G., 1978, “Implication reversal in a natural language,” pp. 289–301 in Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, F. Guenthner and S.J. Schmidt, eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, R., 1974, “Quantification in an extended Montague grammar,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Keenan, E. and Stavi, J., 1986, “A semantic characterization of natural language determiners,” Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. and Westerståhl, D., 1996, “Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic,” pp. 837–893 in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. Van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M., 1992, “Definite NPs aren't quantifiers,” Linguistic Inquiry 23, 156–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, W., 1979, “Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G., 1983, “The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice theoretical approach,” pp. 302–323 in Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, eds., Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scha, R., 1981, “Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification,” pp. 483–512 in Formal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof, and T.M.V. Janssen, eds., Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, B., 1993, Plurals and Events, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R., 1996, Pluralities, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvy, R., 1980, “A more general theory of definite descriptions,” The Philosophical Review 89, 607–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, A., 1997, “Strategies for scope taking,” pp. 109–154 in Ways of Scope Taking, A. Szabolcsi, ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Benthem, J., 1984, “Questions about quantifiers,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 49, 443–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Benthem, J., 1986, Essays in Logical Semantics, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Benthem, J., 1991, Language in Action: Categories, Lambdas and Dynamic Logic, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Does, J., 1992, “Applied quantifier logics: Collectives, naked infinitives,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.

  • Van der Does, J., 1993, “Sums and quantifiers,” Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 509–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y., 1998, “Flexible Boolean Semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language,” Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht University.

  • Winter, Y., 2000, “Distributivity and dependency,” Natural Language Semantics 8, 27–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y., 2001, Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics: Coordination, Plurality and Scope in Natural Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ben-Avi, G., Winter, Y. Monotonicity and Collective Quantification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 127–151 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022305918225

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022305918225

Navigation