Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distributivity Strengthens Reciprocity, Collectivity Weakens It

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we examine interactions of the reciprocal with distributive and collective operators, which are encoded by prefixes on verbs expressing the reciprocal relation: namely, the Czech distributive po and the collectivizing na-. The theoretical import of this study is two-fold. First, it contributes to our knowledge of how word-internal operators interact with phrasal syntax/semantics. Second, the prefixes po and na generate (a range of) readings of reciprocal sentences for which the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis (SMH) proposed by Dalrymple et al. (1998) does not make the right predictions. The distributive prefix po prefers the Strong Reciprocity reading, although the SMH predicts that a weakening should take place, while with the prefix na we find cases where weaker reciprocal readings are preferable to the stronger ones predicted by the SMH. This behavior of po and na is, we propose, due to the way in which they modulate two factors that are crucial in the interpretation of reciprocal sentences: (i) the relevant subpluralities in the group denoted by the reciprocal's antecedent, and (ii) the strength of reciprocal relations. We provide a detailed analysis of the semantics of the prefixes po and na and their contribution to the meaning of reciprocal sentences within the general framework of event semantics with lattice structures.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Agrell, S.: 1908, ‘Aspektänderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte: Ein Beitrag zum Studium der indogermanischen Präverbia und ihrer Bedeutungsfunktionen’, Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, new series, I, iv.2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, E.: 1981, ‘On Time, Tense, and Aspect: An Essay in English Metaphysics’, in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, pp. 63–81.

  • Bach, E.: 1986, ‘The Algebra of Events’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, E., E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee: (eds.): 1995, Quantification in Natural Languages, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R.: 1973, ‘The Semantics and Syntax of Number and Numbers’, in J. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 2, Seminar Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Roberts, N.: 1981, ‘Review of Hawkins (1978)’, Language 10, 167–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusic, D.: 1981, Verbal Plurality and Aspect, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.

  • Dalrymple, M., M. Kanazawa, S. Mchombo, and S. Peters: 1994a, ‘What do reciprocals mean?’, Proceedings of SALT 4, pp. 61–78.

  • Dalrymple, M., S. A. Mchombo, and S. Peters: 1994b, ‘Semantic Similarities and Syntactic Contrasts between Chichewa and English Reciprocals’, Linguistic Inquiry 25(1), 145–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, M., M. Kanazawa, Y. Kim, S. Mchombo, and S. Peters: 1998, ‘Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity’, Linguistics and Philosophy 21(2), 159–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’, in N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Declerck, R.: 1987, ‘Definiteness and Inclusive Reference’, Journal of Literary Semantics 16, 12–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, R. C.: 1974, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Each Other Constructions’, Foundations of Language 12, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N.: 1995, ‘A-Quantifiers and Scope in Mayali’, in E. Bach et al. (eds).

  • Fiengo, R. and H. Lasnik: 1973, ‘The Logical Structure of Reciprocal Sentences in English’, Foundations of Language 9, 447–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filip, H.: 1993/1999, Aspect, Situation Types and Nominal Reference, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1993. [Published as Aspect, Eventuality Types and Noun Phrase Semantics, 1999. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York/London].

    Google Scholar 

  • Filip, H.: 1996, ‘Quantification, Aspect, and Lexicon’, Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar, ESSLLI, Prague.

  • Filip, H.: 2000, ‘The Quantization Puzzle’, in James Pustejovsky and Carol Tenny (eds), Events as Grammatical Objects, from the Combined Perspectives of Lexical Semantics, Logical Semantics and Syntax, CSLI Press, Stanford, pp. 3–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J.: 1991, ‘On (In)definite Articles: Implicatures and (Un)grammaticality Prediction’, Journal of Linguistics 27, 405–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., H. Lasnik, and R. May: 1991, ‘Reciprocity and Plurality’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 63–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heny, F. and C. L. Tenny: 1992, ‘Scope and Core Event Structure: The Relationship between Syntactic and Conceptual Structure’, Poster at the Conference on the Relationship between Linguistic and Conceptual Representation, Antwerp, Belgium.

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1980, ‘Reciprocal Interpretation’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1(3), 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeksema, J.: 1983, ‘Plurality and Conjunction’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1(3), 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoepelman, J. and Ch. Rohrer: 1980, ‘On the Mass-Count Distinction and the French Imparfait and Passé Simple’, in Ch. Rohrer (ed.), Time, Tense and Quantifiers, Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 85–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isačenko, A. V.: 1960, Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii so slovackim. Morfologija, pt. 2. Bratislava.

  • Isačenko, A. V.: 1962, Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart, Part I, Formenlehre, Niemeyer, Halle (Saale).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, 1996, ‘The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out, Telicity, and Perhaps Even Quantitfication in English’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(2), 305–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanski, Z.: 1987, ‘Logical Symmetry and Natural Language Reciprocals’, Proceedings of the 1987 Debrecen Symposium on Language and Logic, Akademiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. J.: 1977, Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force, The Harvester Press.

  • Kempson, R. M. and A. Cormack: 1981, ‘Ambiguity and Quantification’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 259–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipka, P. F.: 1990, Slavic Aspect and its Implications, Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber, G.: 1983, ‘Article défini, théorie de la localisation, et présupposition existentielle’, Langue Française 57, 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1989, ‘Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates’, in E. Bach et al. (eds), Papers on Quantification, NSF Report, MA.

  • Krifka, M.: 1986, Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Individualtermen, Aspektklassen, Doctoral Thesis, The University of Munich, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1992. ‘Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution’, in I. A. Sag and A. Szabolsci (eds), Lexical Matters, pp. 29–53.

  • Krifka, M.L 1996, ‘Pragmatic Strengthening in Plural Predications and Donkey Sentences’, Proceedings from the Conference on Semantics and Linguistics Theory VI, Cornell University, Ithaca, pp. 136–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1997, ‘The Expression of Quantization (Boundedness)’, Paper presented at the Workshop on Cross-Linguistic Variation in Semantics, LSA Summer Institute, Cornell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1998, ‘The Origins of Telicity’, in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 197–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Křížková, H.: 1958, ‘K problematice aktuálního a neaktuálního užití časových a vidových forem v češtině a ruštině’, Československá rusistika 3, 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F.: 1996, ‘Plurality’, in S. Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell Publishers, Inc, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langendoen, D. T.: 1978, ‘The Logic of Reciprocity’, Linguistic Inquiry 9(2), 177–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P.: 1988, A Semantics for Groups and Events, Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University. [Published in 1990. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York/London].

  • Lasersohn, P.: 1990, ‘Group Action and Spatio-Temporal Proximity’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2), 179–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P.: 1995, Plurality, Conjunction and Events, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P.: 1998, ‘Generalized Distributivity Operator’, Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. K.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms’, in R. Bäuerle, Ch. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pp. 302–323. Reprinted in Link, G.: 1998, Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, Lecture Notes No. 74. pp. 11-34.

  • Link, G.: 1984, ‘Hydras. On the logic of relative clause constructions with multiple heads’, in F. Landman and F. Veltman (eds), Varieties of Formal Semantics, GRASS 3. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G.: 1987, ‘Algebraic Semantics of Event Structures’, in J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof, and F. Veltman (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, pp. 243–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G.: 1991, ‘Plural’, Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds), De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 418–440. Reprinted in Link, G.: 1998, Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Lecture Notes No. 74. pp. 35-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lønning, J. T.: 1989, Some Aspects of the Logic of Plural Noun Phrases, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oslo.

  • Maslov, J. S.: 1959, ‘Glagol'nyj vid v sovremennom bolgarskom literaturnom jazyke (značenie i upotreblenie)’, in S. B. Bernstejn (ed.), Voprosy grammatiki bolgarskogo literaturnogo jazyka, Izd-vo AN SSSR, Moscow, pp. 157–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, L.: 1998, Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies. Evidence from Salish, Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, L.: 2000, ‘On Distributivity and Pluractionality’, in SALT 10.

  • Moltmann, F.: 1992, ‘Reciprocals and Same/Different: Towards a Semantic Analysis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15(4), 411–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, F.: 1997, Parts and Wholes in Semantics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P.: 1980, The Classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic, Universitaire Press, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P.: 1990, Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T.: 1986, ‘Underlying Events in the Logical Analysis of English’, in E. LePore, and B. McLaughlin (eds), Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson.

  • Partee, B. H.: 1991, ‘Domains of Quantification and Semantic Typology’, in F. Ingeman (ed.), Proceedings of the 1990 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, University of Kansas.

  • Partee, B. H.: 1995, ‘Quantificational Structures and Compositionality’, in E. Bach et al. (eds).

  • Partee, B. H., E. Bach, and A. Kratzer: 1987, ‘Quantification: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation’, NSF proposal, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, ms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petr, J.: 1986, Mluvnice #x010C;eštiny I: Fonetika, Fonologie, Morfonologie a Morfemika, Tvoření slov. Praha: Academia. [Grammar of Czech I: Phonetics, Phonology, Morphophonology and Morphology. Word Formation].

    Google Scholar 

  • Petronio, K.: 1995, ‘Bare Noun Phrases, Verbs and Quantification in ASL’, in E. Bach et al. (eds).

  • Philip, W.: 1996, ‘Children who Know Each Other’, OTS, Utrecht University. ms.

  • Quine, Willard V. O.: 1960, Word and Object, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C.: 1987, Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, P.: 1985, ‘Aspectual Properties of the Russian Verbal Prefix na-’, in M. S. Flier and A. Timberlake (eds), The Scope of Slavic Aspect, Slavica Publishers, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 59–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scha, R.: 1981, ‘Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification’, in J. Groenendijk et al. (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, pp. 483–512.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoorlemmer, M.: 1995, Participial Passive and Aspect in Russian, Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.

  • Schwarzschild, R.: 1991, On the Meaning of Definite Plural Noun Phrases, Ph.D. Thesis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R.: 1994, ‘Plurals, Presuppositions and the Sources of Distributivity’, Natural Language of Semantics 2, 201–248.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, A.: 1991, Morphological Theory. An Introduction toWord Structure in Generative Grammar, Blackwell, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B.: 1977, ‘Tense and Continuity’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1(2), 199–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenny, C. L.: 1987, Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness, Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenny, C. L.: 1994, Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenny, C. L.: 2000, ‘Core Events and Adverbial Modification’, in James Pustejovsky and Carol Tenny (eds), Events as Grammatical Objects, from the Combined Perspectives of Lexical Semantics, Logical Semantics and Syntax, CSLI Press, Stanford, pp. 245–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkuyl, H. J.: 1972, On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkuyl, H. J.: 1993, A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkuyl, H. J.: 1999, Aspectual Issues: Studies on Time and Quantity, CSLI Lecture Notes, Number 98. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y.: 1996, ‘What Does the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis Mean?’, in T. Galloway and J. Spence (eds), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VI, CLC Publications, New York, Ithaca, pp. 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University, 2016 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL, 60208

    Hana Filip

  2. Department of Linguistics, Lattimore Hall, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, 14627

    Gregory N. Carlson

Authors
  1. Hana Filip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory N. Carlson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Filip, H., Carlson, G.N. Distributivity Strengthens Reciprocity, Collectivity Weakens It. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 417–466 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010621109497

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010621109497

Keywords

Search

Navigation