1887
Volume 51, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1810-7478
  • E-ISSN: 2589-5230
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In comparison to the extensive body of research on canonical expressions of homogeneous plurality, such as Mandarin bare nouns and the English plural morpheme -, the study of similative plurality in natural language has received relatively little attention in the current literature (with notable exceptions such as Smith 2020a, 2020b). This study addresses this gap by contributing to a typological understanding of similative plurality through an analysis of the Mandarin expression , which conveys verbal similative plurality. Notably, in contrast to Japanese - gives rise to two intriguing puzzles: it consistently yields an inclusive interpretation in both upward-entailing and downward-entailing contexts (the monotonicity puzzle) and resists overt contextual restriction (the domain restriction puzzle). Drawing on insights from Smith (2020a, 2020b), we propose a fully inclusive mixture analysis of and demonstrate how this framework accounts for both puzzles. Finally, based on empirical observations of , we propose three parameters to typologically characterize similative plurality in natural language: (a) the Category Parameter, (b) the Host Parameter, and (c) the Domain Argument Parameter.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/consl.24044.cho
2025-11-06
2025-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Armoskaite, Solveiga, and Ayşegül Kutlu
    2014 Turkish m-reduplication: A case of similative plural. Turkic Languages18.1–21: 271–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Champollion, Lucas
    2010 Parts of a Whole: Distributivity as a Bridge between Aspect and Measurement. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  3. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen
    1991 On the Typology of Wh-questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  4. 1995 On dou quantification. Journal of East Asian Linguistics4.31:197–234. 10.1007/BF01731509
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01731509 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chierchia, Gennaro
    2004 Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and Beyond, ed. byAdriana Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2006 Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry37.41:535–590. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector
    2012 The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol.31, ed. byClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger and Paul Portner, 2297–2332. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fox, Danny
    2007 Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, ed. byUli Sauerland and Penka Stateva, 71–112. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230210752_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_4 [Google Scholar]
  9. Huang, Cheng-Teh James
    1982 Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  10. Li, Yen-Hui Audrey
    1992 Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics1.21:125–155. 10.1007/BF00130234
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130234 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lin, Jo-Wang
    1996 Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA.
  12. 1998 On existential polarity wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics7.31:219–255. 10.1023/A:1008284513325
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008284513325 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2024 Nominalization and de-constructions: On shift and self designation structures. Language and Linguistics25.31:454–496.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Link, Godehard
    1983 The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, ed. byRainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze and Arnim von Stechow, 303–323. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110852820.302
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302 [Google Scholar]
  15. New, Keely
    2020 The Semantics of Plurality in Burmese. MA thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Smith, Ryan Walter
    2020a Similative Plurals and the Nature of Alternatives. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  17. 2020b Similative plurality and the nature of alternatives. Semantics and Pragmatics131:1–44. 10.3765/sp.13.15
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.15 [Google Scholar]
  18. Vendler, Zeno
    1957 Verbs and times. Philosophical Review66.21:143–160. 10.2307/2182371
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1967Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501743726
    https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726 [Google Scholar]
  20. Yang, Chung-Yu Barry
    2024 Revisiting sentence-final adjunct WHAT. Language and Linguistics25.11:162–186.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/consl.24044.cho
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error