Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gather/numerous as a mass/count opposition

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Predicates like gather and ones like be numerous have both been described as ‘collective predicates,’ since they predicate something of a plurality. The two classes of predicates differ, however, with respect to plural quantifiers (e.g. all), which are grammatical with gather-type predicates but ungrammatical with numerous-type predicates. Here, I show that the gather/numerous opposition derives from mereological properties that are familiar from the domains of telicity and mass/count. I address problems of undergeneration and overgeneration with two technical innovations: first, I weaken the property of divisibility to Champollion’s concept of stratified reference; second, I provide mechanisms to rule out accidental satisfaction of the logical property. More broadly, I place collective predication in a larger context by building empirical connections to mass/count and collectivity across semantic domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The actual sentence that Winter provides as a counterexample is Exactly five girls drank together a whole glass of beer. I personally find the placement of together in this sentence to be quite unnatural, so I am hesitant to use it as strong counter-evidence. Nevertheless, I think that more natural examples make a similar point: the most parallel examples will be discussed in Sect. 5.1.

  2. Technically, this is the definition of a ‘tightly-fitting’ cover; more commonly, a cover of x is defined to be a set of plural entities whose sum contains x. At the risk of abusing terminology, I will nevertheless use the term ‘cover’ to refer to the concept defined in (13), which will map more easily onto the logical translation of divisiveness and stratified reference. Further discussion of the linguistic use of tightly-fitting covers versus loosely-fitting covers appears in Schwarzschild (1996), Lasersohn (1995), and Brisson (2003).

  3. The observant reader might notice a second difference between these two definitions that relates to the epsilon condition: in divisiveness, the parts must be ‘sufficiently large’; in stratified reference, the parts must be ‘sufficiently small’. The reason for this difference is directly related to the force of the quantifier: in the former case, the epsilon condition removes the threat of guaranteed falsity that would arise from considering singleton sets in the definition. In the latter case, the epsilon condition removes the threat of considering only the trivial cover consisting of the set itself. More discussion of the epsilon condition can be found in Champollion (2010).

  4. Compositionally, adding an argument in subject position will indicate that the agent of e is that argument. Since, by stipulation, measurement events do not have agents, cumulativity of thematic roles guarantees that it is the agent of the drinking/running subevent \(e'\).

  5. Here, looking at collectivity instead of telicity may be helpful, since it is possible that a distinct operation of aspectual coercion may make a similar reading available in sentences with for, confounding the judgments in that domain.

  6. It is unclear whether The students gathered is true if they formed ten separate groups.

  7. Deal (2017) proposes that fake mass nouns have cumulativity but not divisibility.

References

  • Allen, R.L. 1966. The verb system of present-day English. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, E. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (1): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4): 407–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barner, D., and J. Snedeker. 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97 (1): 41–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S., and U. Sauerland. 2000. Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8: 349–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M.R., and B.H. Partee. 1972. Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brisson, C. 2003. Plurals, all, and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (2): 129–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buccola, B. 2015. Variable monotonicity and less than: When Van Benthem’s problem is not a problem. In Proceedings of NELS 45, ed. T. Bui and D. Özyıldız, 125–134. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Carlson, G.N. 1984. Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation. Linguistics 22 (3): 259–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G.N. 1987. Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10 (4): 531–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champollion, L. 2010. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Champollion, L. 2015. Stratified reference: The common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement. Theoretical Linguistics 41 (3–4): 109–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champollion, L. 2017. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champollion, L., J. Bledin, and H. Li. 2017. Rigid and flexible quantification in plural predicate logic. In Proceedings of SALT 27, ed. D. Burgdorf, J. Collard, S. Maspong, and B. Stefánsdóttir, 418–437. Washington, DC: LSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, C.-Y. 1973. Comments on Moravcsik’s paper. In Approaches to natural language, ed. J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes, 286–288. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 53–104. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174 (1): 99–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice and intervention (Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Corblin, F. 2008. Des prédicats non-quantifiables: Les prédicats holistes. Langages 169: 34–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, M.W. 1964. A reference grammar of Syrian Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M.J. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Montague grammar, ed. B.H. Partee, 261–292. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusic, D.D. 1981. Verbal plurality and aspect. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

  • Davidson, D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The logic of decision and action, ed. N. Rescher, 81–95. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal, A.R. 2017. Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics 25: 125–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2014. Collective quantification and the homogeneity constraint. In Proceedings of SALT 24, ed. T. Snider, S. d’Antonio, and M. Wiegand, 453–472. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Dotlačil, J., and R. Nouwen. 2016. The comparative and degree pluralities. Natural Language Semantics 24: 45–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I., S. Elqayam, H. Singmann, and J. van Wijnbergen-Huitink. 2018. Conditionals and inferential connections: A hypothetical inferential theory. Cognitive Psychology 101: 50–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D.R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D.R. 1987. Collective predicates, distributive predicates, and all. In Proceedings of the 3rd eastern states conference on linguistics (ESCOL), ed. A. Miller and Z.-S. Zhang, 97–115. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

  • Fine, K. 2012. The pure logic of ground. Review of Symbolic Logic 25 (1): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski, J. 2002. L-analyticity and natural language. MIT: Manuscript.

  • Grimm, S. 2012. Degrees of countability: A mereotopological approach to the mass/count distinction. In Proceedings of SALT 22, ed. A. Chereches, 584–603. Washington, DC: LSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardt, D., and L. Mikkelsen. 2015. Same but different. Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (4): 289–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardt, D., L. Mikkelsen, and B. Ørsnes. 2012. Sameness, ellipsis and anaphora. In Logic, language and meaning: 18th Amsterdam colloquium, ed. M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G.W. Sassoon, K. Schulz, and M. Westera, 341–350. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Mansucript: University of Texas, Austin.

  • Henderson, R. 2012. Ways of pluralizing events. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Henderson, R. 2017. Swarms: Spatiotemporal grouping across domains. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 161–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. 1994. Mass and count quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (5): 447–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husband, E.M. 2010. Compositional states. In Proceedings of SALT 20, ed. N. Li and D. Lutz, 76–90. Washington, DC: LSA.

  • Kennedy, C. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (1): 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., and L. McNally. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81 (2): 345–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. 1976. Events as property exemplifications. In Action theory, ed. M. Brand and D. Walton, 159–177. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Kratzer, A. 2008. On the plurality of verbs. In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, ed. J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, and M. Schäfer, 269–300. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Semantics and contextual expression, ed. R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical matters, ed. I.A. Sag and A. Szabolcsi, 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Kroch, A.S. 1974. The semantics of scope in English. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  • Krzyzanowska, K., P. Collins, and U. Hahn. 2017. Between a conditional’s antecedent and its consequent: Discourse coherence vs. probabilistic relevance. Cognition 164: 199–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, J. 2014. Gather-type predicates: Massiness over participants. Presentation at the 45th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 45), MIT, 2014.

  • Kuhn, J. 2019. Collective predicates with all: An experimental investigation. Manuscript, Ecole Normale Supérieure.

  • Landman, F. 1989. Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (5): 559–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, P. 1995. Plurality, conjunction, and events. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, 303–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lønning, J.T. 1987. Mass terms and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 10 (1): 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S. 2000. Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 213–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mari, A. 2014. Each other, asymmetry, and reasonable futures. Journal of Semantics 31: 209–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, B. 2017. ‘And’: conjunction reduction redux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R. 2017. Two ways of being plural: An event semantic perspective on the mass count distinction. MIT: Manuscript.

  • Stalnaker, R. 1968. A theory of conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quarterly 2: 98–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternefeld, W. 1998. Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics 6: 303–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taub, A. 1989. Collective predicates, aktionsarten and all. In Papers on quantification, ed. E. Bach, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee, 122–152. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. 1977. Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (2): 199–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, M. 1996. Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse: The dynamics of nominal anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

  • Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66 (2): 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, A. 2015. On the semantics of comparison across categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 38: 67–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, A., V. Hacquard, and R. Pancheva. 2012. Measuring and comparing individuals and events. Journal of Semantics 29: 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y. 2001. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics: The interpretation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y. 2002. Atoms and sets: A characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3): 493–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E. 2007. The semantic typology of pluractionality. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.

  • Zucchi, S., and M. White. 2001. Twigs, sequences and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (2): 187–222.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut Jean Nicod, Département d’Études Cognitives, Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS), EHESS, CNRS, PSL Research University, Pavillon Jardin, 29, rue d’Ulm, 75005, Paris, France

    Jeremy Kuhn

Authors
  1. Jeremy Kuhn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Kuhn.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Thank you to Brian Buccola, Lucas Champollion, Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin, Lelia Glass, Sonia Kasyanenko, Manuel Križ, David Nicolas, Jérémy Pasquereau, Benjamin Spector, and to audiences at NELS 45, New York University, Paris Diderot University, and Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf. The research leading to these results received funding from ERC H2020 Grant Agreement No. 788077–Orisem (PI: P. Schlenker). Research was conducted at the Département d’Etudes Cognitives (ENS), which is supported by Grants ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL and ANR-17-EURE-0017 FrontCog.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuhn, J. Gather/numerous as a mass/count opposition. Nat Lang Semantics 28, 225–253 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09163-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09163-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation