A unified semantics for distributive and non-distributive universal quantifiers across languages
Name
11049_2025_Article_9673.pdf
Size
1.72 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
2d0bbf508b3ef0c12d8f47fc0e91dbbd
Author(s)
Haslinger, Nina
Hien, Alain N.
Rosina, Emil E.
Schmitt, Viola
Wurm, Valerie
Date Issued
July 9, 2025
Journal
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Citation
Haslinger, N., Hien, A.N., Rosina, E.E. et al. A unified semantics for distributive and non-distributive universal quantifiers across languages. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 43, 3147–3214 (2025).
Version
Final published version
Abstract
Universal quantifiers differ in whether they are restricted to distributive interpretations, like English every, or permit non-distributive interpretations, like English all. This interpretational difference is traditionally captured by positing two unrelated lexical entries for distributive and non-distributive quantification. But this lexical approach does not explain why distributivity correlates with number: cross-linguistically, distributive universal quantifiers typically take singular complements, while non-distributive quantifiers consistently take plural complements. We derive this correlation by proposing a single lexical meaning for the universal quantifier, which derives a non-distributive interpretation if the restrictor predicate is closed under sum, but a distributive interpretation if it is quantized. Support comes from languages in which the same lexical item expresses distributive or non-distributive quantification depending on the number of the complement. For languages like English that have different expressions for non-distributive and distributive quantification, we propose that the distributive forms contain an additional morphosyntactic element that is semantically restricted to combine with a predicate of atomic individuals. This is motivated by the fact that in several languages, the distributive form is structurally more complex than the non-distributive form and sometimes even contains it transparently. We further show that in such languages, there are empirical advantages to taking the choice between distributive and non-distributive quantifier forms to be driven by semantic properties of the restrictor predicate, rather than morphosyntactic number.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-025-09673-5
