Semantics etc.

Newly available at the Semanticsarchive:

Susanne Tunstall: 1998. The Interpretation of Quantifiers: Semantics & Processing. PhD Dissertation, UMass Amherst.

Abstract The primary goal of this study is to develop a theory of the processing of doubly-quantified sentences such as A squirrel picked up every nut, particularly how the scope ambiguity in such sentences is resolved. The research departs from most psycholinguistic work in drawing upon current linguistic theories of LF, the syntax-semantics interface, and formal semantics. First, I investigate the issue of how structural factors affect quantifier scope preferences. I argue that the processor takes an economic stance towards scope assignment. The preferred relative scoping of two quantified phrases is computed from the ‘required’ LF structure– the LF constructed from required grammatical operations acting on S-structure. Furthermore, I contend that when every has scope over a, the processor does not commit to how many entities the a-phrase represents.

Next, I present an analysis of the semantic differences between each and every with respect to event distributivity, in preparation for considering the scope behavior of these quantifiers. I demonstrate that a sentence containing each can only be true of an event which has a totally distributive event structure, where each individual object in the restrictor set of the quantified phrase is associated with its own subevent, and all the subevents are differentiated on some relevant dimension. Every is subject to the weaker requirement that there be at least two different subevents.

Finally, I apply the semantic analysis of each and every to the question of how individual quantifiers affect scope preferences. Each has often been said to have a stronger preference for wide scope than every. I argue that this observation arises from cases where each takes wide scope in order to fulfill its condition requiring total event distributivity and differentiation of subevents. Otherwise the scope behavior of each and every is quite similar; they preferentially take wide scope only when that is the scoping computed off the required LF structure. More generally, I hypothesize that a quantifier’s scope behavior is driven by the lexical condition(s) which are part of its meaning.

Experimental evidence is presented in support of each of these claims.

Johnson, Kyle. 2004. “How to be Quiet”, paper presented at CLS 40.

One job of the ellipsis theorist is to characterize the connection between the syntax of ellipsis and its semantics. And a central goal of that task is to explain where it is that ellipses are possible.

The main textbook for this course is

Paul Portner. 2005. What is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Blackwell. ISBN: 1405109181. Paperback, $29.95. Available at MIT Coop in Kendall Square.

There are 18 pre-registered students for this course. Together with a couple of listeners and the instructor and the TA, that would be a little much for the originally assigned classroom (which seats 20). So, we are changing the room for the class.

We will meet in Room 66-168.

Janneke Huitink (2005), Anankastic Conditionals and Salient Goals, to appear in the proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9.

Abstract In this paper I evaluate two recent analyses of anankastic conditionals, the designated goal analysis by von Fintel & Iatridou (2004) and the modal base restriction account of Penka, Krasikowa and von Stechow (2004). I will show that both theories make the wrong predictions in scenarios with multiple non-conflicting goals. To solve the problem, I propose that ordering sources select salient goals from the context of utterance. For anankastic conditionals the ordering source selects the goal described in the if-clause. At the end of this paper I present some arguments against the recent analysis of anankastic conditionals as counterfactuals by von Stechow, Krasikowa and Penka (2004).

[Yes, I have been away from blogging for a month. My apologies. Won’t happen again, any time soon at least.]

On Friday, 1/21/05, the NPR talk show The Connection had a one-hour segment on endangered languages. Here’s the introduction:

Disappearing Words

The influential MIT linguist Kenneth Hale once compared losing a language to dropping a bomb on a museum. And yet it is happening, all the time.

Every month, somewhere on the globe, two languages go silent. Everywhere from South Dakota to South America, Australia to Alaska when the last speaker of a language dies, the history and the culture and the memory of that language goes with them.

Most linguists agree that globalization, assimilation, disease, and natural disaster all play a role in wiping out languages. And while no one thinks there’s an easy fix for this problem — some people are dedicating their lives to reversing this trend and trying to keep languages alive.

The guests were:

• Nicholas Ostler, author of “Empires of the Word” and founder of The Foundation for Endangered Languages
• Linda Harvey, Urban Programs Coordinator at Yukon Native Language Center, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada
• Charon Asetoyer, Founder and Executive Director of the Founder and Executive Director of the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center

You can listen to the story.

There is a preliminary version of the syllabus.

A draft version of the syllabus is available.

This is the course website for the Spring 2005 incarnation of course 24.973 Advanced Semantics. The first class meeting is on Tuesday, February 1, 2005. See you then.

[Last year’s website has been archived. You can still access it at .]

This is the website for the Spring 2005 edition of 24.903 “Language and Its Structure III: Semantics and Pragmatics”. More info to come soon.