Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 97)


The Overview lists generalizations we were able to infer from the 19 articles in the current volume, 16 in the first volume, plus one study of Finnish (Suihkonen 2007. On Quantification in Finnish. LINCOM Pub.) that was based on the same semantic categories as we used 24 such generalizations are given, some of which hold for all languages in the sample. The others hold of a majority, sometimes almost all. Authors however were encouraged to present their discussion of quantification in terms that were natural to the language under discussion, and as a consequence not all authors responded to every little query that was present in the questionnaire, nor do all the articles follow the same presentational format. A few of the generalizations were not at all anticipated by the editors and were almost accidentally mentioned in passing in the questionnaire. On the other hand several major topics were addressed by all authors. So we can say that all 36 languages in our sample have expressions of cardinal (hence intersective), co-cardinal (hence universal) and proportionality quantification.


Semantic categories Quantification Language Cardinal Co-cardinal Typology 


  1. Bach, E. E., Jelinek, K. A., & Partee, B. (1995). Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Bittner, M. (1995). Quantification in Eskimo: A challenge for compositional semantics. In Bach et al. (pp.59–81).Google Scholar
  3. Bittner, M. & Trondhjem, N. (2008). Quantification as reference: Evidence from Q-verbs. In Matthewson (pp. 7–67).Google Scholar
  4. Boolos, G. (1981). For every A there is a B. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(3), 465–467.Google Scholar
  5. Bruening, B. (2008). Quantification in Passamaquoddy. In Matthewson (pp. 67–105).Google Scholar
  6. Chung, S. (2008). Possessors and definiteness effects in two Austronesian languages. In Matthewson (pp. 179–225).Google Scholar
  7. Evans, N. (1995). A-quantifiers and scope in Mayali. In Bach et al. (pp. 207–271).Google Scholar
  8. Gil, D. (1993). Nominal and verbal quantification. In Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung. Berlin 46(4), 275–317.Google Scholar
  9. Jelinek, E. (1995). Quantification in Straights Salish. In Bach et al. (pp. 487–541).Google Scholar
  10. Keenan, E. L. (1987). Multiply-Headed NPs. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 481–490.Google Scholar
  11. Keenan, E. L. (1988). On semantics and the binding theory. In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 105–144). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Keenan, E. L. (2008). Quantification in Malagasy. In L. Matthewson (pp. 319–352).Google Scholar
  13. Lee, F. (2008). On the absence of quantificational determiners in San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec. In Matthewson (pp. 353–383).Google Scholar
  14. Matthewson, L. (Ed.). (2008). Quantification (North Holland linguistic series, Vol. 64). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  15. Safir, K. & Stowell, T. (1988). Proc. of NELS 18,426–450. GLSA, Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Suihkonen, P. (2007). On quantification in Finnish. Muenchen: LINCOM Pub.Google Scholar
  17. WALS (2005). M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie (Eds.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Zimmermann, M. (2002). Boys buying two sausages each. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.LORIA (UMR 7503), CNRSVandoeuvre-lès-NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations