Denotation and Implicature of Distributivity
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Landman (2000) reduces distributivity to plurality mostly from the semantic point of view. This paper fundamentally points out that distributivity amounts to plurality not only at the semantic level but also at the pragmatic level. First, sorting out several plausible interpretations associated with distributivity, I spell out the denotation and implicature of distributivity. Thoroughly understanding distributivity at two different levels of interpretation, I further discuss that the denotation and implicature of distributivity reveal parallel patterns with those of plurality. Just like plurality forms a strength scale with singularity, distributivity forms a strength scale with collectivity. On the basis of the scale, the implicature of distributivity is arrived at by subtracting the denotation of collectivity from the denotation of distributivity. This is the same process how the implicature of plurality is derived. Noting the intriguing parallelism, I confirm the fact that Landman introduces to the grammar, i.e., distributivity amounts to plurality.
Abstract
Landman (2000) reduces distributivity to plurality mostly from the semantic point of view. This paper fundamentally points out that distributivity amounts to plurality not only at the semantic level but also at the pragmatic level. First, sorting out several plausible interpretations associated with distributivity, I spell out the denotation and implicature of distributivity. Thoroughly understanding distributivity at two different levels of interpretation, I further discuss that the denotation and implicature of distributivity reveal parallel patterns with those of plurality. Just like plurality forms a strength scale with singularity, distributivity forms a strength scale with collectivity. On the basis of the scale, the implicature of distributivity is arrived at by subtracting the denotation of collectivity from the denotation of distributivity. This is the same process how the implicature of plurality is derived. Noting the intriguing parallelism, I confirm the fact that Landman introduces to the grammar, i.e., distributivity amounts to plurality.
참고문헌 (15)
- Beghelli, F, "Distributivity and Negation in Ways of Scope Taking", pp.71~107 (1996), Kluwer
- Chierchia,G, "Reference to Kinds Across Languages", Natural Language Semantics, 6, pp.339~405 (1998)
- Farkas, D, "The Semantics and Pragmatics of Plurals", 석사, pp.2008
- Joh,Y.K, "Plurality and Distributivity", 박사, pp.2008
- Joh,Y.K, "A Unified Analysis of the Three Uses of Distributive Quantifiers", Language and Linguistics, 44, pp.205~234 (2009)
- Joh,Y.K, "Universal Quantifiers", 석사, pp.2010
- Kearns,K, "Semantics" (2000), St. Martin's Press
- Landman,F, "Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures" (2000), Kluwer
- Sauerland, U, "A New Semantics for Number", Proceedings of SALT 13, pp.258~275 (2003)
- Sauerland,U, "Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentence", Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, pp.367~391 (2004)
- Sauerland, U, "The Plural is Semantically Unmarked in Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives", pp.413~434 (2005), Mouton de Gruyter
- Schwarzschild,R, "Pluralities" (1996), Kluwer
- Spector,B, "Aspects of the Pragmatics of Plural Morphology: On Higher-order Implicatures in Presuppositions and Implicatures in Compositional Semantics", pp.243~281 (2007), Palgrave-Macmillan
- Tunstall,S, "The Interpretation of Quantifiers: Semantics and Processing", 박사, pp.1999
- Zweig,E, "Dependent Plurals and Plural Meaning", 박사, pp.2008