The paper focuses on the semantics of distributivity, grammatical number, and cardinality predicates (numerals and modifiers like several). I argue that constructions involving so-called ‘dependent plurals’, i.e. plurals lacking cardinality predicates occurring in the scope of certain quantificational items such as all and most (e.g. All the girls were wearing hats), pose a challenge to familiar semantic frameworks that distinguish between two sources of multiplicity: mereological plurality and distributive quantification. I argue that dependent plural readings should be analysed as distinct both from cumulative readings and distributive readings, in the classical sense. I demonstrate how this can be accomplished in a semantic framework where expressions are evaluated relative to sets of assignments, or plural info states (van den Berg, in Stokhof and Torenvliet (eds) Proceedings of the 7th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1990, in Dekker and Stokhof (eds) Proceedings of the 9th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1994, Some aspects of the Internal Structure of Discourse. The Dynamics of Nominal Anaphora. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1996). The specific formal implementation is based on a modified version of Brasoveanu’s (Structured nominal and modal reference. PhD thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2007, Linguist Philos 31(2):129–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0, 2008) Plural Compositional DRT. In this framework we are able to distinguish between two types of distributivity: weak distributivity across the assignments in a single plural info state and strong distributivity across multiple info states. I argue that both of these types of distributivity play a role in the semantics of natural language, accounting for the contrasting properties of ‘singular quantifiers’, such as each and every, and ‘plural quantifiers’, such as all and most. The contrasting properties of bare plurals and plurals involving cardinality modifiers are analysed in terms of the distinction between state-level and assignment-level (mereological) plurality.

该论文重点介绍了分配性、语法数和基数谓词（数词和修饰词如几个）的语义。我认为涉及所谓的“从属复数”的结构，即缺乏基数谓词的复数发生在某些量化项目的范围内，例如all和most（例如，所有女孩都戴着帽子)，对熟悉的语义框架提出了挑战，这些框架区分了多样性的两个来源：分体多元性和分布量化。我认为，依存复数阅读应该与经典意义上的累积阅读和分配阅读区别开来进行分析。我演示了如何在语义框架中实现这一点，其中表达式相对于一组赋值或复数信息状态进行评估（van den Berg，在 Stokhof 和 Torenvliet (eds) Proceedings of the 7th Amsterdam Colloquium，ILLC，阿姆斯特丹大学，阿姆斯特丹，1990 年，在 Dekker 和 Stokhof (eds) 第 9 届阿姆斯特丹学术讨论会论文集，ILLC，阿姆斯特丹大学，阿姆斯特丹，1994 年，话语内部结构的某些方面。名义回指的动力学。博士论文，阿姆斯特丹大学， 1996）。具体的正式实现基于 Brasoveanu 的修改版本（结构化名义和模态参考。博士论文，罗格斯大学，新泽西州立大学，2007，语言学家哲学 31（2）：129–209。https://doi。 org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0, 2008) 复数组合 DRT。在这个框架中，我们能够区分两种类型的分配性：在单个复数信息状态中分配的弱分配性和跨多个信息状态的强分配性。我认为这两种类型的分配性在自然语言的语义中都发挥作用，解释了“单数量词”的对比属性，例如 2007 年，语言学哲学 31(2):129–209。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0, 2008) 复数组合 DRT。在这个框架中，我们能够区分两种类型的分配性：在单个复数信息状态中分配的弱分配性和跨多个信息状态的强分配性。我认为这两种类型的分配性在自然语言的语义中都发挥作用，解释了“单数量词”的对比属性，例如 2007 年，语言学哲学 31(2):129–209。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0, 2008) 复数组合 DRT。在这个框架中，我们能够区分两种类型的分配性：在单个复数信息状态中分配的弱分配性和跨多个信息状态的强分配性。我认为这两种类型的分配性在自然语言的语义中都发挥作用，解释了“单数量词”的对比属性，例如each和every以及“复数量词”，例如all和most。根据状态级和分配级（分体）复数之间的区别，分析了裸复数和涉及基数修饰符的复数的对比特性。