Floating Quantification: French Universal Quantifiers

  • Lena BaunazEmail author
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 83)


Taking into account syntax, semantics and prosody, I elaborate a detailed characterization of Universal Quantifiers (∀Qs) in French. My description is restricted to tous les N ‘all the N’ and chacun des Ns ‘each of the N’, and I discuss their semantics (distributivity, collectivity, presupposition), prosody and syntax (both at the DP and sentential levels). I show that ∀Qs also display specificity and partitivity, but that contrary to wh-phrases and ∃Qs, this information is lexically encoded. One consequence is that they are clause-bound. Another related consequence is that they never display Split-DP structures. I claim that these Qs are complex DPs, composed of an operator, a restriction and a nuclear scope. I show that ∀Qs are best analyzed as adjoined to a maximal projection (Doeties, 1997, Quantifiers and Selection. On the Distriction of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Doctoral) dissertation, HIL, Leiden University; Fitzpatrick, 2006, Syntactic and Semantic Routes to Floating Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.


Noun Phrase Wide Scope Event Argument Mass Noun Plural Pronoun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, Jon and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifier and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4:159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baunaz, Lena. 2008. Floating quantifiers: french universal quantifiers and N-words. In Selected Proceedings of the 34th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Special Issue of the Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, vol. 33. P. Beninca˛, F. Damonte and N. Penello (eds.). Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF-movement. Natural Language Semantics 4:1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beghelli, Fillipo. 1995. The Phrase Structure of Quantifier Scope. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  6. Beghelli, Fillipo and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), 71–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In The Second Glot International State-of-The-Article Book, Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma (eds.), 107–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Bošković, Zeljiko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22:681–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brisson, Christine. 1998. Distributivity, Maximality and Floating Quantifiers. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  10. Choe, Jae-Woong. 1987. Anti-Quantifiers and a Theory of Distributivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Déprez, Viviane. 1994. The weak island effect of floating quantifiers. In Functional Projections: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, Elena Benedicto and Jeff Runner (eds.), 63–84. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection. On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Doctoral dissertation, HIL, Leiden University. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
  15. Dowty, David and Bellinda Brodie. 1984. The semantics of floated quantifiers in a transformational grammar. Proceedings of the West Coast Conferences of Formal Linguistics 3:75–90.Google Scholar
  16. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. ‘The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25.Google Scholar
  17. Fitzpatrick, Justin Michael. 2006. Syntactic and Semantic Routes to Floating Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Flaux, Nelly and Danièle van de Velde. 1997. Tous ensemble, Chacun Séparement. In Langue Franaise 112:33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fodor, Jerry and Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. In Linguistics and Philosophy 5:355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1997. The Landscape of Polarity Items. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 18.Google Scholar
  21. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative Concord and the scope of universals. Transactions of the Philological Society 98:87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002. N-words and negative concord. Final, pre-publication version, published in 2006. In The Linguistics Companion. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2004. Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14:110–128.Google Scholar
  25. Gil, David. 1995. Universal quantifiers and distributivity. In Quantification in Natural Languages, Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara Partee (eds.), 321–362. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 95–123. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Haïk, Isabelle. 1982. On clitic en in French. Journal of Linguistic Research 2(1):63–87.Google Scholar
  28. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  29. Heim, Irene. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric Reuland and Alice G.B. ter Meulen (eds.), 21–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Horn, Laurence. 1997. All John’s children are as bald as the king of France: Existential import and the geometry of opposition. Chicago Linguistics Society 33:155–179.Google Scholar
  31. Ihsane, Tabea. 2008. The Layered DP. Form and Meaning of French Indefinites Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Junker, Marie-Odile. 1995. Syntax et sémantique des quantifieurs flottants tous et chacun. Distributivité en sémantique conceptuelle. Genève: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
  33. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar
  35. Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47:3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kobuchi-Philip, Mana. 2003. Distributivity and the Japanese Floating Numeral Quantifier. Ph.D. dissertation. City University of New York.Google Scholar
  38. Kobuchi-Philips, Mana. 2006. The floating quantifier’s restrictor. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics, Eric McCready (ed.), 209–220. Tokyo: The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  39. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua, 85.1:211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigations of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12:607–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, published in 1979. New York-London: Garland.Google Scholar
  43. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1983. Une Quantification Non-Canonique: La Quantification à Distance. Langue Franaise 58:66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh and Martin Stokhof (eds.), 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  45. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424.Google Scholar
  46. Puskás, Genoveva. 2002. Floating quantifiers: What they can tell us about the syntax and semantics of quantifiers. GG@G 3:105–128.Google Scholar
  47. Puskás, Genoveva. 2000. Quantification in the left periphery: A syntactic argument for ‘split’ domains. In CLS 36, Volume 1: The Main Session, John Boyle, Jung-Huyck Lee and Arika Okrent (eds.). Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago.Google Scholar
  48. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope. How labour is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rizzi, Luigi. 2003. On some properties of subjects and topics. In Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, L. Brugé, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, W. Schweikert and G. Turano, (eds.). Venezia: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
  50. Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84:159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corrolaries for constituent structure. Linquistic Inquiry 19–23.Google Scholar
  52. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  53. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. ‘The noun phrase’. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27:179–274.Google Scholar
  54. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Szekely, Rachel. 2006. Feature-placing, localizability, and the semantics of existential sentences, 361–371. Accessed 18 June 2009.
  56. Tremblay, Mireille. 1991. Alternances d’arguments internes en français et en anglais. Revue québécoise de linguistique 20(1):39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2003. On the asymmetrical but regular properties of French possessive DPs. In From NP to DP, volume 2: The Expression of Possession in Noun Phrases, M. Coene and Y. D’Hulst (eds.), Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 56, 141–163. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations