Abstract
The questionnaire, which constitutes this chapter, illustrates a semantically based classification of quantificational expressions cross classified according as the expressions are adverbial in character (A-quantifiers) or nominal/determiner-like (D-quantifiers). Examples are drawn mostly from English, except where other languages have structure types not readily mimicked in English, such as various types of A-quantifiers and Quantifier Float.
We take the basic semantic type of quantifiers to be a relation between properties. For example, no in No king shaves himself denotes a relation between the property of being a king and the property of shaving oneself. D-quantifiers and A-quantifiers differ with regard to what the relevant properties are properties of. D-quantifiers relate properties of entities (possibly abstract), A-quantifiers relate properties of events or “times”. It remains true (Gil 1993, Nominal and verbal quantification. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 46(4):275–317, Evans 1995), that A-quantifiers are structurally more diverse and semantically less well understood than D-quantifiers. And it happens often that syntactically non-isomorphic expressions have the same quantificational force. Even within the narrow domain of D-quantifiers a given quantificational expression may look like an English Determiner in one language and like an adjective in another. Compared to earlier typologically oriented treatments of quantifiers (Bach E, Jelinek E, Kratzer A, Partee BH (eds), Quantification in natural languages, vols 1 and 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995; Haspelmath M, Dryer MS, Gil D, Comrie B (eds), The world atlas of language structures (WALS). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005; Matthewson et al. 2008) our questionnaire focuses proportionately more on ways of building syntactically complex quantificational expressions. On semantic grounds we distinguish three fundamental classes of quantifiers: intersective (existential), co-intersective (universal) and proportionality quantifiers. In addition for D-quantifiers we discuss definite quantifiers and partitive ones. It is significant that D- and A-quantifiers all exhibit members of the first three classes, with A-quantifiers being, perhaps, slightly richer in variety. And within the three basic classes interesting sub-classes are distinguished as cardinal, co-cardinal, value judgment quantifiers and interrogative quantifiers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., & Partee, B. H. (Eds.). (1995). Quantification in natural languages vols 1 and 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker, M. (1995). On the absence of certain quantifiers in Mohawk. In Bach et al. (1995). Vol. 1, (pp. 13–21).
Beghelli, F. (1994). Structured quantifiers. In M. Kanazawa & C. Piñón (Eds.), Dynamics, polarity, and quantification (pp. 119–147). Stanford: CSLI.
Betts, G. (1986). Latin (Teach Yourself Books). Hodder Headline Plc: London.
Bittner, M., & Trondhjem, N. (2008). Quantification as reference: Evidence from Q-verbs. In Matthewson (pp. 7–67).
Boolos, G. (1981). For every A there is a B. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 465–466.
Chung, S. (1998). The design of agreement. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Chung, S. (2008). Possessors and definiteness effects in two Austronesian languages. In Matthewson (2008) (pp. 179–225).
de Swart, H. (1996). Quantification over time. In van der Does and van Eijck (pp. 311–337).
Gil, D. (1982). Distributive numerals. PhD dissertation. UCLA.
Gil, D. (1988). Georgian reduplication and the domain of distributivity. Linguistics, 26, 1039–1065.
Gil, D. (1993). Nominal and verbal quantification. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, Berlin, 46(4), 275–317.
Gil, D. (2005). Distributive numerals. In Haspelmath et al. (pp. 222–226).
Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (Eds.). (2005). The world atlas of language structures (WALS). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Higginbotham, J. (1994). Mass and count quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17, 447–480. Reprinted in Bach et al., vol II.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jelinek, E. (1995). Quantification in straights Salish. In Bach et al. (1995). pp. 487–541.
Keenan, E. L. (1987). Multiply-headed NPs. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 481–490.
Keenan, E. L. (1992). Beyond the frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 199–221.
Keenan, E. L. (1996). Further beyond the frege boundary. In J. Van der Does & J. Van Eijck (Eds.), Quantifiers, logic, and language (pp. 179–201). Stanford: CSLI.
Keenan, E. L. (2008). Quantification in Malagasy. In Matthewson (pp. 319–353).
Keenan, E. L., & Moss, L. S. (1984). Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural language. In Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 73–127). Dordrecht: Foris.
Lee, F. (2008). On the absence of quantificational determiners in San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec. In Matthewson (pp. 353–383).
Lee, T. H. T., Yip, V., & Chuming, W. (1999). Inverse scope in Chinese-English interlanguage. Lingua Posnaniensis, XLI, 49–66.
Matthewson, L. (2001). Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 145–189.
Matthewson, L. (2008). Quantification: A cross-linguistic perspective (North-Holland linguistic series, Vol. 64). Bingley: Emerald.
Moltmann, F. (1995). Exception sentences and polyadic quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 223–280.
Moltmann, F. (1996). Resumptive quantifiers in exception phrases. In H. De Swart, M. Kanazawa, & C. Piñón (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction and context. Stanford: CSLI.
Munro, P. (1984). Floating quantifiers in Pima. In Syntax and semantics Vol.16, The Syntax of native American languages (pp. 269–287). New York: Academic.
Partee, B. H. (1995). Quantificational structures and compositionality. In Bach et al. 1995 (pp. 541–601).
Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pratt, I., & Francez, N. (2001). Temporal prepositions and temporal generalized quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24(2), 187–222.
Safir, K., & Stowell, T. (1988). Binominal ‘each’. In Proceedings of NELS 18 (pp. 426–450). Amherst.
Stump, G. (1981). The interpretation of frequency adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 221–257.
Szabolcsi, A. (1997). Quantifiers in pair-list readings. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tyhurst, J. (1989). A semantic characterization of referentially dependent Noun Phrases. Presented at the Winter Meetings of the LSA.
Vieira, M. D. (1995). The expression of quantificational notions in Asurini do Trocara: Evidence against the universality of determiner quantification. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 701–720). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
von Fintel, K. (1993). Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 123–148.
WALS (see Haspelmath et al above).
Zimmermann, M. (2002). Boys buying two sausages each. PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keenan, E.L. (2017). The Quantifier Questionnaire. In: Paperno, D., Keenan, E. (eds) Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 97. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44330-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44330-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44328-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44330-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)