Cover not available

Article published In: Language and Linguistics
Vol. 22:2 (2021) ► pp.272–301

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

On reciprocal degree constructions

A view from Mandarin

 | National Tsing Hua University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 17 April 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00083.hsi
Abstract
A degree sentence such as John and Mary are equally tall conveys both reciprocity and equivalence and hence are termed “Reciprocal Equatives” (RE). Building on Schwarz, Bernhard. 2007. Reciprocal equatives. In McNally, Louise & Puig-Waldmüller, Estela (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 568–582. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar pioneer study, I suggest an account for this degree construction that covers a wider range of data. To the extent that the proposal is on the right track, it provides new support for building in plurality in the domain of degrees, an idea that has been put forward by Beck (. 2010. Quantifiers in than-clauses. Semantics and Pragmatics 31. 1–72. (Article 1.) Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; . 2014. Plural predication and quantified ‘than’-clauses. In Crnič, Luka & Sauerland, Uli (eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 11 (MITWPL 70), 91–115. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and Dotlačil, Jakub & Nouwen, Rick. 2016. The comparative and degree pluralities. Natural Language Semantics 24(1). 45–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Types of reciprocal equatives
    • 1.2Vagueness and context sensitivity
    • 1.3Roadmap
  • 2.Plural predication and degree plurality
    • 2.1Plural predication and covers
    • 2.2Plurality in the domain of degrees
  • 3.The semantics of REs
    • 3.1Universal and predicative REs
    • 3.2The plurality requirement of REs
  • 4.Covers, grouping and the interpretation of adnominal REs
    • 4.1The syntax and semantics of adnominal REs
    • 4.2Context sensitivity and covers
  • 5.Amount REs
  • 6.On reciprocal inequatives
  • 7.The alternative analysis
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (41)
References
Alrenga, Peter & Kennedy, Christopher. 2014. No more shall we part: Quantifiers in English comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 22(1). 1–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2). 159–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2000. The semantics of different: Comparison operator and relational adjective. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(2). 101–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9(1). 69–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Quantifiers in than-clauses. Semantics and Pragmatics 31. 1–72. (Article 1.) Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Lucinda driving too fast again – The scalar properties of ambiguous than-clauses. Journal of Semantics 30(1). 1–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Plural predication and quantified ‘than’-clauses. In Crnič, Luka & Sauerland, Uli (eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 11 (MITWPL 70), 91–115. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brisson, Christine M. 1998. Distributivity, maximality, and floating quantifiers. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Plurals, all, and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(2). 129–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Champollion, Lucas. 2016. Ten men and women got married today: Noun coordination and the intersective theory of conjunction. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 561–622. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Liping. 2005. Dou-(dis)harmony in Chinese. In Bateman, Leah & Ussery, Cherlon (eds.), NELS 35: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 11, 127–142. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Dou: Distributivity and beyond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1995. On dou-quantification. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(3). 197–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998a. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 70), 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998b. Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4). 339–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4). 393–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dotlačil, Jakub & Nouwen, Rick. 2016. The comparative and degree pluralities. Natural Language Semantics 24(1). 45–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitzgibbons, Natalia & Sharvit, Yael & Gajewski, Jon. 2008. Plural superlatives and distributivity. In Friedman, Tova & Ito, Satoshi (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 18), 302–318. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. 2002. On analyticity in natural language. Cambridge: MIT. (Manuscript.) ([URL]) (Accessed 2020-09-01.)
Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2006. Little. In Gibson, Masayuki & Howell, Jonathan (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 16), 35–58. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Shi-Zhe. 1996. Quantification and predication in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of dou. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Križ, Manuel. 2016. Homogeneity, non-maximality, and all. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 493–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75(3). 522–551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Thomas Hun-Tak. 1986. Studies on quantification in Chinese. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-wang. 1998. Distributivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics 6(2). 201–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, Rainer & Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2008. More of the same. (Paper presented at GLOW 31, Newcastle upon Tyne, 26–28 March 2008.)
Paris, Marie-Claude. 2008. On parts of speech in Chinese: Gen. The Linguistic Review 25(3–4). 347–366.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Rooth, Mats. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Bäuerle, Rainer & Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 361–383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4). 335–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2008. Degree modification in natural language. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, Bernhard. 2007. Reciprocal equatives. In McNally, Louise & Puig-Waldmüller, Estela (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 568–582. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 61). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger & Wilkinson, Karina. 2002. Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10(1). 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2015. Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics 32(2). 221–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1998. Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics 6(3). 303–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4). 399–467. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue