Skip to main content
Log in

Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora

Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper proposes the first unified account of deictic/sentence-external and sentence-internal readings of singular different. The empirical motivation for such an account is provided by a cross-linguistic survey and an analysis of the differences in distribution and interpretation between singular different, plural different and same (singular or plural) in English. The main proposal is that distributive quantification temporarily makes available two discourse referents within its nuclear scope, the values of which are required by sentence-internal uses of singular different to be distinct, much as its deictic uses require the values of two discourse referents to be distinct. Thus, we take sentence-internal readings to be a form of ‘association with distributivity’ that is similar to association with focus. The contrast between singular different, plural different and same is explained in terms of several kinds of quantificational distributors that license their internal readings. The analysis is executed in a stack-based dynamic system couched in type logic, so we get compositionality in the usual Montagovian way. Quantificational subordination and dependent indefinites in various languages provide additional motivation for the account. Investigating the connections between items with sentence-internal readings and the quantificational licensors of these readings opens up a larger project of formally investigating (i) the typology of quantificational distributors and distributivity-dependent items and (ii) the fine-grained contexts of evaluation needed to capture this typological variation.

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

References

  • Alrenga, P. (2007). Dimensions in the semantics of comparatives. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.

  • Barker C. (2007) Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 407–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S. (1997) On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 229–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S. (2000) The semantics of different: Comparison operator and relational adjective. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 101–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 71–107). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Bittner, M. (2007). Online update: Temporal, modal and de se anaphora in polysynthetic discourse. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 363–404). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Brasoveanu A. (2008) Donkey pluralities: Plural information states vs. non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 129–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasoveanu, A. (2008b). Deictic and sentence-internal readings of same/different as anaphora: A unified compositional account. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2008 workshop ‘What syntax feeds semantics?’

  • Brasoveanu, A. (2008c). Sentence-internal readings of same/different as quantifier-internal anaphora. In Proceedings of the 27th west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 72–80).

  • Brasoveanu, A. (2008d). Comparative correlatives as anaphora to differentials. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 18 (pp. 126–143). Cornell University.

  • Brasoveanu A. (2010) Decomposing modal quantification. Journal of Semantics 27: 437–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisson C. (2003) Plurals, all and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 129–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson G. (1987) Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 531–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (2000) Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics (2nd ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P. (1994). Predicate logic with anaphora. In L. Santelmann & M. Harvey (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT IV (pp. 79–95), DMLL, Cornell University.

  • Dotlačil, J. (2010). Anaphora and distributivity. A study of same, different, reciprocals and others. PhD dissertation, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.

  • Dowty, D. (1985). A unified indexical analysis of same and different: A response to Stump and Carlson. Ms, Ohio State University.

  • Farkas, D. F. (1981). Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In R. Hendrik, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of CLS 7 (pp. 59–66), CLC, Cornell University.

  • Farkas, D. F. (1997). Dependent indefinites. In F. Corblin, D. Godard, & J.-M. Marandin (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (pp. 243–267). Bern: Peter Lang.

  • Farkas D.F. (2002) Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19: 1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, D. F. (2007). Free choice in Romanian. In Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricen studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 71–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Gallin D. (1975) Intensional and higher-order modal logic with applications to Montague semantics. North-Holland mathematics studies. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Heim I. (1985) Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms, UT Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Lasnik H., May R. (1991) Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 63–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson K. (1996) Topics in syntax. University of Massachusetts, Lecture notes

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Part 1 (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.

  • Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Kanazawa M. (2001) Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 383–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 7, pp. 363–385). New York: Academic Press.

  • Keenan E. (1992) Beyond the Frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 199–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M. (1996) Parametric sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 555–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laca, B., & Tasmowski, L. (2003). From non-identity to plurality: French différent as an adjective and as a determiner. In J. Quer, J. Schroten, M. Scorretti, P. Sleeman, & E. Verheugd (Eds.), Romance languages & linguistic theory 2001 (pp. 155–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Larson R. (1990) Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Matushansky, O. (2007). The same as? Handout for the Colloque International sur les Adjectifs, Université Lille 3, September 13–15. http://mapage.noos.fr/matushansky/Downloads/Lille.pdf.

  • McCawley, J. (1988). The comparative conditional construction in English, German and Chinese. In Proceedings of BLS (Vol. 14, pp. 176–187).

  • Moltmann F. (1992) Reciprocals and same/different: Towards a semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 411–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muskens, R. (1995). Tense and the logic of change. In U. Egli, P. E. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow & G. Wienold (Eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language (pp. 147–183). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.

  • Nouwen R. (2007) On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36: 123–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild R. (1996) Pluralities. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A. (2010). Correlational comparison in English. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.

  • Solomon, M. (2009). Partitives and the Semantics of Same. Handout for Sinn und Bedeutung 14.

  • Stump, G. (1982). A GPSG fragment for ‘dependent nominals. Ms.

  • Szabolcsi A. (2011) Quantification. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovena L., van Peteghem M. (2002) Différent vs. Autre et L’Opposition Réciproque vs. Comparatif. Lingvisticae Investigationes 25: 149–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, M. (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • van der Sandt R.A. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen K. (1993) Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2: 217–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Brasoveanu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brasoveanu, A. Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora. Linguist and Philos 34, 93–168 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9096-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9096-3

Keywords

Navigation