University of Groningen
Experimental investigations into the semantics of distributive marking
Bosnić, Ana
DOI:
10.33612/diss.171644158
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2021
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Bosnić, A. (2021). Experimental investigations into the semantics of distributive marking: Data from
Serbian, Korean and Dutch. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.171644158
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
R
References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE
Trans-actions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.
Arsenijević, B. (2018). Atypical demonstratives in an articleless language. In M. Co-niglio, A. Murphy, E. Schlachter, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Atypical demonstratives:
syntax, semantics and pragmatics (p. 161). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Balusu, R. (2006). Distributive reduplication in Telugu. Proceedings North East
Linguistic Society (NELS) 36, 39–52.
Balusu, R., & Jayaseelan, K. A. (2013). Distributive quantification by reduplica-tion in Dravidian. In K.-H. Gil, S. Harlow, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Strategies of
quantification (pp. 60–86). OUP Oxford.
Bar-Lev, Moshe E., & Margulis, D. (2014). Hebrew kol: a universal quantifier as an undercover existential. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 18, pp. 60–76).
Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118(1), 84–93. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects
models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi. org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Beck, S., & Sauerland, U. (2000). Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000).
Natural Language Semantics, 8(4), 349–371.
Beck, S., & von Stechow, A. (2007). Pluractional adverbials. Journal of Semantics,
24(3), 215–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm003
Bennett, J. F. (1988). Events and their names. Hackett Publishing Company. Boškovic, Ž. (2012). On NPs and clauses. In G. Grewendorf & T. E. Zimmermann
(Eds.), Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories (pp. 179–246). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511601.179 Bosnić, A. (2016). Distributivity and agreement mismatches in Serbia. In S.
Halupka-Rešetar & S. Martínez-Ferreiro (Eds.), Workshop on
Psycholin-guistic, Neurolinguistic and Clinical Linguistic Research (3: 2015; Novi Sad), Studies in Language and Mind (pp. 77–101). http://digitalna.ff.uns.ac.rs/
sadrzaj/2016/978-86-6065-359-0
Bosnić, A., & Demirdache, H. (in preparation). Mind the gap: Homogeneity effects with bare plurals and distributive markers in Serbian. Talk presented at the
Slavic Linguistic Society 15. Indiana University (Bloomington, IN).
Bosnić, A., Spenader, J., & Demirdache, H. (2020a). Dancing monkeys in Serbian and Korean – exhaustivity requirements on distributive share markers. Glossa:
A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.858
Bosnić, A., Velich, M., & Spenader, J. (2020b). Event-distributivity and exhaustivity: Insights into distributive share markers from experiments with German jeweils.
Linguistics in the Netherlands, 37(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00034.bos
Brisson, C. M. (1998). Distributivity, Maximality, and Floating Quantifiers. PhD dissertation. Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ.
Brooks, P. J., & Braine, M. D. S. (1996). What do children know about the universal quantifiers all and each? Cognition, 60(3), 235–268. https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00712-3
Brooks, P. J., & Sekerina, I.A. (2006). Shortcuts to quantifier interpretation in children and adults. Language Acquisition, 13(3), 177–206.
Cable, S. (2014). Distributive numerals and distance distributivity in Tlingit (and beyond). Language, 90(3), 562–606. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0055 Cabredo-Hofherr, P. (2010). Verbal plurality and event plurality (Typology Summer
School reader). Leipzig, Germany
Cabredo-Hofherr, P., & Laca, B. (Eds.). (2012). Verbal plurality and distributivity. Walter de Gruyter.
Cabredo-Hofherr, P., & Tovena, L. M. (2015). Lectures on events and event plurality. Cabredo-Hofherr, P., & Etxeberria, U. (2017). Distributive numerals in Basque. In
Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 185–194).
Cabredo-Hofherr, P., Pasquerau, J. & O’Meara, C. (2019). Event plurality in Seri. In Proceedings of Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas
10, 1-16.
Champollion, L. (2016b). Overt distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Se-mantics and Pragmatics 9(16). 1–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.16 Champollion, L. (2012). Each vs. Jeweils: A cover-based view on distance
distrib-utivity. In M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G. W. Sassoon, K. Schulz, & M. Westera (Chairs), 18th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam.
Champollion, L. (2016a). Covert distributivity in algebraic event semantics.
Se-mantics and Pragmatics, 9(15), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.15
Champollion, L. (2017). Distributivity, collectivity, and cumulativity. In Mat-thewson L., C. Meier, H. Rullmann, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Wiley’s
Companion to Semantics (pp. 1–38).
Choe, J.W. (1987). Anti-quantifiers and a theory of distributivity. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Cusic, D. D. (1982). Verbal plurality and aspect. PhD dissertation. Stanford Uni-versity, Stanford, CA.
Does, J., van der. (2013). Sums and quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy. 509-550. Donazzan, M., & Müller, A. L. (2015). Reduplicated numerals as pluractionals: Distributivity as a Window to the Individuation of Events. Journal of
Portu-guese Linguistics, 14(1), 95–127.
Dotlačil, J. (2010). Anaphora and distributivity: A study of same, different, reciprocals
and others. PhD dissertation. University of Utrecht.
Drozd, K. (2001). Children’s weak interpretations of universally quantified sen-tences. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language Acquisition and
Conceptual Development (pp. 340–376). Cambridge University Press.
Drozd, K., Musolino, J., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2013). Comprehension of dis-tributive quantification by typically developing children and children with Grammatical-SLI. In TABU Dag 2013 (pp. 21–23).
Drozd, K., van der Lely, H. K. J., & Montalto, R. (2017). Children’s comprehension of distributive universal quantification. Lingua, 198, 89–109.
Faller, M. (2001). The problem of Quechua-nka — distributivity vs. group forming. In Proceedings of SULA. Amherst (pp. 38–46).
Farkas, D. F. (1997). Dependent indefinites. In D. F. Farkas, F. Corblin, D. Godard, & J.-M. Marandin (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (pp. 243–268). Peter Lang Publishers.
R
References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE
Trans-actions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.
Arsenijević, B. (2018). Atypical demonstratives in an articleless language. In M. Co-niglio, A. Murphy, E. Schlachter, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Atypical demonstratives:
syntax, semantics and pragmatics (p. 161). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Balusu, R. (2006). Distributive reduplication in Telugu. Proceedings North East
Linguistic Society (NELS) 36, 39–52.
Balusu, R., & Jayaseelan, K. A. (2013). Distributive quantification by reduplica-tion in Dravidian. In K.-H. Gil, S. Harlow, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Strategies of
quantification (pp. 60–86). OUP Oxford.
Bar-Lev, Moshe E., & Margulis, D. (2014). Hebrew kol: a universal quantifier as an undercover existential. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 18, pp. 60–76).
Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118(1), 84–93. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects
models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi. org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Beck, S., & Sauerland, U. (2000). Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000).
Natural Language Semantics, 8(4), 349–371.
Beck, S., & von Stechow, A. (2007). Pluractional adverbials. Journal of Semantics,
24(3), 215–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm003
Bennett, J. F. (1988). Events and their names. Hackett Publishing Company. Boškovic, Ž. (2012). On NPs and clauses. In G. Grewendorf & T. E. Zimmermann
(Eds.), Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories (pp. 179–246). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511601.179 Bosnić, A. (2016). Distributivity and agreement mismatches in Serbia. In S.
Halupka-Rešetar & S. Martínez-Ferreiro (Eds.), Workshop on
Psycholin-guistic, Neurolinguistic and Clinical Linguistic Research (3: 2015; Novi Sad), Studies in Language and Mind (pp. 77–101). http://digitalna.ff.uns.ac.rs/
sadrzaj/2016/978-86-6065-359-0
Bosnić, A., & Demirdache, H. (in preparation). Mind the gap: Homogeneity effects with bare plurals and distributive markers in Serbian. Talk presented at the
Slavic Linguistic Society 15. Indiana University (Bloomington, IN).
Bosnić, A., Spenader, J., & Demirdache, H. (2020a). Dancing monkeys in Serbian and Korean – exhaustivity requirements on distributive share markers. Glossa:
A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.858
Bosnić, A., Velich, M., & Spenader, J. (2020b). Event-distributivity and exhaustivity: Insights into distributive share markers from experiments with German jeweils.
Linguistics in the Netherlands, 37(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00034.bos
Brisson, C. M. (1998). Distributivity, Maximality, and Floating Quantifiers. PhD dissertation. Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ.
Brooks, P. J., & Braine, M. D. S. (1996). What do children know about the universal quantifiers all and each? Cognition, 60(3), 235–268. https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00712-3
Brooks, P. J., & Sekerina, I.A. (2006). Shortcuts to quantifier interpretation in children and adults. Language Acquisition, 13(3), 177–206.
Cable, S. (2014). Distributive numerals and distance distributivity in Tlingit (and beyond). Language, 90(3), 562–606. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0055 Cabredo-Hofherr, P. (2010). Verbal plurality and event plurality (Typology Summer
School reader). Leipzig, Germany
Cabredo-Hofherr, P., & Laca, B. (Eds.). (2012). Verbal plurality and distributivity. Walter de Gruyter.
Cabredo-Hofherr, P., & Tovena, L. M. (2015). Lectures on events and event plurality. Cabredo-Hofherr, P., & Etxeberria, U. (2017). Distributive numerals in Basque. In
Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 185–194).
Cabredo-Hofherr, P., Pasquerau, J. & O’Meara, C. (2019). Event plurality in Seri. In Proceedings of Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas
10, 1-16.
Champollion, L. (2016b). Overt distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Se-mantics and Pragmatics 9(16). 1–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.16 Champollion, L. (2012). Each vs. Jeweils: A cover-based view on distance
distrib-utivity. In M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G. W. Sassoon, K. Schulz, & M. Westera (Chairs), 18th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam.
Champollion, L. (2016a). Covert distributivity in algebraic event semantics.
Se-mantics and Pragmatics, 9(15), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.15
Champollion, L. (2017). Distributivity, collectivity, and cumulativity. In Mat-thewson L., C. Meier, H. Rullmann, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Wiley’s
Companion to Semantics (pp. 1–38).
Choe, J.W. (1987). Anti-quantifiers and a theory of distributivity. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Cusic, D. D. (1982). Verbal plurality and aspect. PhD dissertation. Stanford Uni-versity, Stanford, CA.
Does, J., van der. (2013). Sums and quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy. 509-550. Donazzan, M., & Müller, A. L. (2015). Reduplicated numerals as pluractionals: Distributivity as a Window to the Individuation of Events. Journal of
Portu-guese Linguistics, 14(1), 95–127.
Dotlačil, J. (2010). Anaphora and distributivity: A study of same, different, reciprocals
and others. PhD dissertation. University of Utrecht.
Drozd, K. (2001). Children’s weak interpretations of universally quantified sen-tences. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language Acquisition and
Conceptual Development (pp. 340–376). Cambridge University Press.
Drozd, K., Musolino, J., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2013). Comprehension of dis-tributive quantification by typically developing children and children with Grammatical-SLI. In TABU Dag 2013 (pp. 21–23).
Drozd, K., van der Lely, H. K. J., & Montalto, R. (2017). Children’s comprehension of distributive universal quantification. Lingua, 198, 89–109.
Faller, M. (2001). The problem of Quechua-nka — distributivity vs. group forming. In Proceedings of SULA. Amherst (pp. 38–46).
Farkas, D. F. (1997). Dependent indefinites. In D. F. Farkas, F. Corblin, D. Godard, & J.-M. Marandin (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (pp. 243–268). Peter Lang Publishers.
R
Farkas, D. F. (2015). Dependent indefinites revisited. Talk presented at the work-shop Journées (Co-) Distributivité, Paris, France.
Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2001). Distributivity strengthens reciprocity, col-lectivity weakens it. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24(4), 417–466. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1010621109497
Fintel, K. von, (2005). How to count situations (Notes towards a user’s manual). https://web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2005-counting.pdf
Fintel, K. von. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation. Uni-versity of Massachusetts, Amherst Amherst, MA.
Frazier, L., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1999). Taking on semantic commitments, II: collective versus distributive readings. Cognition, 70(1), 87–104.
Gil, D. (1982). Distributive numerals. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Gil, D. (1990). Markers of distributivity in Japanese and Korean. In H. Hoji & P. M. Clancy (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics: Volume 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 385–393). Cambridge University Press.
Gil, D. (1995). Universal quantifiers and distributivity. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. B. H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 321–362). Springer Science & Business Media. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_11
Gil, D. (2013). Distributive numerals. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, Oxford University, H.-J. Bibiko, Oxford University Press, Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, J. Hagen, D. Gil, B. Comrie, & C. Schmidt (Eds.),
The World Atlas of Language Structures (pp. 222–225). OUP Oxford.
Gillon, C. (2014). The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in
Skwxx-wú7mesh. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 760–778. Henderson, R. (2011). Pluractional distributivity and dependence. Semantics and
Linguistic Theory, 21, 218–235. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2612
Henderson, R. (2014). Dependent indefinites and their post-suppositions.
Seman-tics and PragmaSeman-tics, 7(6), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.6
Hout, A., van. (2008). Acquisition of perfective and imperfective aspect in Dutch, Italian and Polish. Lingua, 118(11), 1740–1765.
Kim, T. (2012). How does distributivity induce emphasis? The Semantics Workshop of the American Midwest and Prairies (SWAMP).
Kiss, K. É., & Zétényi, T. (2018). Linguistic pathway to multiplication. Acta
Lin-guistica Academica, 65(2-3), 201–225.
Kiss, K. É., Gerőcs, M., & Zétényi, T. (2013). Preschoolers’ interpretation of doubly quantified sentences. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 60(2), 143–171.
Knežević, N. (2012). Serbian distributive children. Current Issues in Generative
Linguistics: Syntax, Semantics and Phonology, 2, 26–41.
Knežević, N. (2015). Numerals and distributivity in Serbian: at the
syntax-seman-tics-acquisition interface. PhD dissertation. University of Nantes, France.
Knežević, N., & Demirdache, H. (2017). On the acquisition of distributive nu-merals in Serbian. In Language Acquisition and Development. Proceedings of
Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition 2015 (GALA) (pp. 83–107).
Knežević, N., & Demirdache, H. (2018). Universal quantification and distributive marking in Serbian. In K. É. Kiss & T. Zétényi (Eds.), Linguistic and Cognitive
Aspects of Quantification (pp. 115–140). Springer.
Koert, M., van (2016). Binding and quantification in monolingual and bilingual
language acquisition. PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
Koster, A.M.B de, Spenader, J., Dotlačil, & Hendriks, P. (2020a). A multiple cue explanation of collective interpretations with each. In: M. M. Brown & A. Kohu (Eds), Proceedings of the 44nd annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development (pp. 252-265), Cascadilla Press.
Koster, A.M.B. de, Dotlačil, J., & Spenader, J. (2017). Children’s understanding of distributivity and adjectives of comparison. In M. LaMendola & J. Scott (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 373–386). Cascadilla Press.
Koster, A.M.B. de, Spenader, J., & Hendriks, P. (2018). Are children’s overly distrib-utive interpretations and spreading errors related. In A. B. Bertolini & M. K. Kaplan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference
on Language Development (pp. 413–426). Cascadilla Press.
Koster, A.M.B. de, Spenader, J., & Hendriks, P. (2020b). Collective preferences in Dutch revealed by a covered-box experiment. Linguistics in the Netherlands,
37(1), 53–70.
Kratzer, A. (2007). On the plurality of verbs. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, & M. Schäfer (Eds.), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation (Vol. 269, p. 300). Walter de Gruyter.
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and tem-poral constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters (pp. 29–53). Cambridge University Press.
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 197–235). Springer Science & Business Media.
Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (Vol. 1, pp. 257–291). Elsevier.
Križ, M. (2015). Homogeneity, non-maximality, and all. Journal of Semantics,
33(3), 493–539.
Križ, M. (2017). In Soviet Russia, alcohol is dependent on you. Festschrift for Martin
Prinzhorn. Wiener Linguistische Gazette (WLG), 82, 173–180.
Križ, M., & Chemla, E. (2015). Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity. Natural Language
Semantics, 23(3), 205–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9114-z
Kuhn, J. (2017). Dependent indefinites: the view from sign language. Journal of
Semantics, 34(3), 407–446.
Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Berlin, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8581-1 Lasersohn, P. (1999). Pragmatic halos. Language, 75(3), 522–551.
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2002). Children’s command of quantification. Cognition,
R
Farkas, D. F. (2015). Dependent indefinites revisited. Talk presented at the work-shop Journées (Co-) Distributivité, Paris, France.
Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2001). Distributivity strengthens reciprocity, col-lectivity weakens it. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24(4), 417–466. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1010621109497
Fintel, K. von, (2005). How to count situations (Notes towards a user’s manual). https://web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2005-counting.pdf
Fintel, K. von. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation. Uni-versity of Massachusetts, Amherst Amherst, MA.
Frazier, L., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1999). Taking on semantic commitments, II: collective versus distributive readings. Cognition, 70(1), 87–104.
Gil, D. (1982). Distributive numerals. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Gil, D. (1990). Markers of distributivity in Japanese and Korean. In H. Hoji & P. M. Clancy (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics: Volume 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 385–393). Cambridge University Press.
Gil, D. (1995). Universal quantifiers and distributivity. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. B. H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 321–362). Springer Science & Business Media. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_11
Gil, D. (2013). Distributive numerals. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, Oxford University, H.-J. Bibiko, Oxford University Press, Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, J. Hagen, D. Gil, B. Comrie, & C. Schmidt (Eds.),
The World Atlas of Language Structures (pp. 222–225). OUP Oxford.
Gillon, C. (2014). The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in
Skwxx-wú7mesh. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 760–778. Henderson, R. (2011). Pluractional distributivity and dependence. Semantics and
Linguistic Theory, 21, 218–235. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2612
Henderson, R. (2014). Dependent indefinites and their post-suppositions.
Seman-tics and PragmaSeman-tics, 7(6), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.6
Hout, A., van. (2008). Acquisition of perfective and imperfective aspect in Dutch, Italian and Polish. Lingua, 118(11), 1740–1765.
Kim, T. (2012). How does distributivity induce emphasis? The Semantics Workshop of the American Midwest and Prairies (SWAMP).
Kiss, K. É., & Zétényi, T. (2018). Linguistic pathway to multiplication. Acta
Lin-guistica Academica, 65(2-3), 201–225.
Kiss, K. É., Gerőcs, M., & Zétényi, T. (2013). Preschoolers’ interpretation of doubly quantified sentences. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 60(2), 143–171.
Knežević, N. (2012). Serbian distributive children. Current Issues in Generative
Linguistics: Syntax, Semantics and Phonology, 2, 26–41.
Knežević, N. (2015). Numerals and distributivity in Serbian: at the
syntax-seman-tics-acquisition interface. PhD dissertation. University of Nantes, France.
Knežević, N., & Demirdache, H. (2017). On the acquisition of distributive nu-merals in Serbian. In Language Acquisition and Development. Proceedings of
Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition 2015 (GALA) (pp. 83–107).
Knežević, N., & Demirdache, H. (2018). Universal quantification and distributive marking in Serbian. In K. É. Kiss & T. Zétényi (Eds.), Linguistic and Cognitive
Aspects of Quantification (pp. 115–140). Springer.
Koert, M., van (2016). Binding and quantification in monolingual and bilingual
language acquisition. PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
Koster, A.M.B de, Spenader, J., Dotlačil, & Hendriks, P. (2020a). A multiple cue explanation of collective interpretations with each. In: M. M. Brown & A. Kohu (Eds), Proceedings of the 44nd annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development (pp. 252-265), Cascadilla Press.
Koster, A.M.B. de, Dotlačil, J., & Spenader, J. (2017). Children’s understanding of distributivity and adjectives of comparison. In M. LaMendola & J. Scott (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 373–386). Cascadilla Press.
Koster, A.M.B. de, Spenader, J., & Hendriks, P. (2018). Are children’s overly distrib-utive interpretations and spreading errors related. In A. B. Bertolini & M. K. Kaplan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference
on Language Development (pp. 413–426). Cascadilla Press.
Koster, A.M.B. de, Spenader, J., & Hendriks, P. (2020b). Collective preferences in Dutch revealed by a covered-box experiment. Linguistics in the Netherlands,
37(1), 53–70.
Kratzer, A. (2007). On the plurality of verbs. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, & M. Schäfer (Eds.), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation (Vol. 269, p. 300). Walter de Gruyter.
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and tem-poral constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters (pp. 29–53). Cambridge University Press.
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 197–235). Springer Science & Business Media.
Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (Vol. 1, pp. 257–291). Elsevier.
Križ, M. (2015). Homogeneity, non-maximality, and all. Journal of Semantics,
33(3), 493–539.
Križ, M. (2017). In Soviet Russia, alcohol is dependent on you. Festschrift for Martin
Prinzhorn. Wiener Linguistische Gazette (WLG), 82, 173–180.
Križ, M., & Chemla, E. (2015). Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity. Natural Language
Semantics, 23(3), 205–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9114-z
Kuhn, J. (2017). Dependent indefinites: the view from sign language. Journal of
Semantics, 34(3), 407–446.
Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Berlin, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8581-1 Lasersohn, P. (1999). Pragmatic halos. Language, 75(3), 522–551.
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2002). Children’s command of quantification. Cognition,
R
Link, G. (1987). Generalized quantifiers and plurals. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.),
Gen-eralized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches (pp. 151–180). Springer
Science & Business Media.
Magri, G. (2014). An account for the homogeneity effect triggered by plural defi-nites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In S. Pistoia-Reda (Ed.), Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures (pp. 99–145). Palgrave Macmillan.
Malamud, S. A. (2012). The meaning of plural definites: A decision-theoretic approach. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(3), 1-58.
Martin, F., Demirdache, H., Del Real, I. G., van Hout, A., & Kazanina, N. (to appear). Children’s non-adultlike interpretations of telic predicates across languages. Linguistics.
Matthewson, L. (2000). On distributivity and pluractionality. In Semantics and
Linguistic Theory (Vol. 10, pp. 98-114)
McKercher, D., & Kim, Y. (1999). What does ssik in Korean really mean. Japanese/
Korean Linguistics, 9, 239–252.
Müller, A. L., & Negrão, E.V. (2012). On distributivity in Karitiana. In P. Cabre-do-Hofherr & B. Laca (Eds.), Verbal plurality and distributivity (Vol. 185, p. 159). Walter de Gruyter.
Musolino, J. (2004). The semantics and acquisition of number words: Integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition, 93(1), 1–41.
Musolino, J. (2009). The logical syntax of number words: Theory, acquisition and processing. Cognition, 111(1), 24–45.
Newman, P. (1980). The classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic. Universitaire Pers Leiden.
Newman, P. (2012). Pluractional verbs: An overview. In P. Cabredo-Hofherr & B. Laca (Eds.), Verbal plurality and distributivity (Vol. 185, p. 209). Walter de Gruyter.
Novogrodsky, R., Roeper, T., & Yamakoshi, K. (2013). The collective-distributive reading of each and every in language acquisition. In S. Stavrakaki, M. Lalioti, M. Lalioti, & X. Konstantinopoulou (Eds.), Advances in language acquisition (pp. 138–146). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Oh, S.R. (2001). Distributivity in an event semantics. Semantics and Linguistic
Theory, 11, 326–345.
Oh, S.R. (2006). Plurality markers across languages. PhD dissertation. University of Connecticut.
Ouwayda, S. (2014). Where number lies: Plural marking, numerals, and the
collective-distributive distinction. PhD dissertation. University of Southern
California.
Pagliarini, E., Fiorin, G., & Dotlačil, J. (2012). The acquisition of distributivity in pluralities. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference
on Language Development (pp. 387–399).
Philip, W. (1991). Spreading in the acquisition of universal quantifiers. In G. Chierchia & D. Bates (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference
on Formal Linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 359–374). Linguistics Association Press.
Progovac, Lj. (1994). Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge University Press.
Przepiórkowski, A. (2008). Generalized Quantifier Restrictions on the Arguments of the Polish Distributive Preposition po. Cognitive Studies| Études cognitives, (8, pp. 159-177).
Przepiórkowski, A. (2015). A weakly compositional analysis of distance distribu-tivity in Polish. In M. Szajbel-Keck, R. Burns, & D. Kavitskaya (Eds.), Annual
Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The First Berkeley Meet-ing, 2014 (Vol. 23, pp. 262–281).
R Core Team. (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://cran.univ-paris1.fr/web/packages/dplR/vignettes/intro-dplR.pdf Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. PhD
dis-sertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Roeper, T., Pearson, B. Z., & Grace, M. (2011). Quantifier spreading is not distrib-utive. Boston University Conference on Language Development, 35, 526–539. Roeper, T., Strauss, U., & Pearson, B. Z. (2006). The acquisition path of quantifiers:
Two kinds of spreading. Language Acquisition, 34.
Rouweler, L., & Hollebrandse, B. (2015). Distributive, collective and “everything” in between: Interpretation of universal quantifiers in child and adult language.
Lin-guistics in the Netherlands, 32(1), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.32.10rou
Safir, K., & Stowell, T. (1988). Binominal each. Proceedings of NELS, 18, 426–450. Scha, R. (1981). Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In
Groenendijk, Jeroen AG, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. B. J. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal
methods in the study of language (pp. 483–512). Mathematisch Centrum.
Schwarz, F. (2013). Maximality and definite plurals-experimental evidence.
Pro-ceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 509–526.
Schwarzschild, R. (1996). Pluralities. Springer Science & Business Media. Sekerina, I. A., & Sauermann, A. (2010). Processing of the Quantifier kazhdyj
‘every’in Russian. University of Maryland. Talk presented at 19th Workshop
on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics.
Sekerina, I. A., & Sauermann, A. (2015). Visual attention and quantifier-spreading in heritage Russian bilinguals. Second Language Research, 31(1), 75–104. Sekerina, I. A., & Sauermann, A. (2017). Quantifier spreading in child eye
move-ments: A case of the Russian quantifier kazhdyj ‘every’. Glossa: A Journal of
General Linguistics, 2(1).
Sekerina, I. A., Brooks, P. J., Campanelli, L., & Schwartz, A. M. (2018). Quantifier spreading in school-age children: An eye-tracking study. In K. É. Kiss & T. Zétényi (Eds.), Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of Quantification (pp. 171–192). Springer.
Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In J. T. Mc-Namara (Ed.), Language learning and thought (pp. 185–214). Academic Press, Inc.
Spenader, J., & Bosnić, A. (2018). Distributivity preferences for Dutch quantifiers elk and ieder. In B. Hollebrandse, J. Kim, A. T. P. Leroux, & P. Schulz (Eds.),
TOM and Grammar: Thoughts on Mind and Grammar: a Festschrift in Honor of Tom Roeper (Vol. 41). GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association),
Department of Linguistics
Stanley, J., & Gendler Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind &
R
Link, G. (1987). Generalized quantifiers and plurals. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.),
Gen-eralized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches (pp. 151–180). Springer
Science & Business Media.
Magri, G. (2014). An account for the homogeneity effect triggered by plural defi-nites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In S. Pistoia-Reda (Ed.), Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures (pp. 99–145). Palgrave Macmillan.
Malamud, S. A. (2012). The meaning of plural definites: A decision-theoretic approach. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(3), 1-58.
Martin, F., Demirdache, H., Del Real, I. G., van Hout, A., & Kazanina, N. (to appear). Children’s non-adultlike interpretations of telic predicates across languages. Linguistics.
Matthewson, L. (2000). On distributivity and pluractionality. In Semantics and
Linguistic Theory (Vol. 10, pp. 98-114)
McKercher, D., & Kim, Y. (1999). What does ssik in Korean really mean. Japanese/
Korean Linguistics, 9, 239–252.
Müller, A. L., & Negrão, E.V. (2012). On distributivity in Karitiana. In P. Cabre-do-Hofherr & B. Laca (Eds.), Verbal plurality and distributivity (Vol. 185, p. 159). Walter de Gruyter.
Musolino, J. (2004). The semantics and acquisition of number words: Integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition, 93(1), 1–41.
Musolino, J. (2009). The logical syntax of number words: Theory, acquisition and processing. Cognition, 111(1), 24–45.
Newman, P. (1980). The classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic. Universitaire Pers Leiden.
Newman, P. (2012). Pluractional verbs: An overview. In P. Cabredo-Hofherr & B. Laca (Eds.), Verbal plurality and distributivity (Vol. 185, p. 209). Walter de Gruyter.
Novogrodsky, R., Roeper, T., & Yamakoshi, K. (2013). The collective-distributive reading of each and every in language acquisition. In S. Stavrakaki, M. Lalioti, M. Lalioti, & X. Konstantinopoulou (Eds.), Advances in language acquisition (pp. 138–146). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Oh, S.R. (2001). Distributivity in an event semantics. Semantics and Linguistic
Theory, 11, 326–345.
Oh, S.R. (2006). Plurality markers across languages. PhD dissertation. University of Connecticut.
Ouwayda, S. (2014). Where number lies: Plural marking, numerals, and the
collective-distributive distinction. PhD dissertation. University of Southern
California.
Pagliarini, E., Fiorin, G., & Dotlačil, J. (2012). The acquisition of distributivity in pluralities. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference
on Language Development (pp. 387–399).
Philip, W. (1991). Spreading in the acquisition of universal quantifiers. In G. Chierchia & D. Bates (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference
on Formal Linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 359–374). Linguistics Association Press.
Progovac, Lj. (1994). Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge University Press.
Przepiórkowski, A. (2008). Generalized Quantifier Restrictions on the Arguments of the Polish Distributive Preposition po. Cognitive Studies| Études cognitives, (8, pp. 159-177).
Przepiórkowski, A. (2015). A weakly compositional analysis of distance distribu-tivity in Polish. In M. Szajbel-Keck, R. Burns, & D. Kavitskaya (Eds.), Annual
Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The First Berkeley Meet-ing, 2014 (Vol. 23, pp. 262–281).
R Core Team. (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://cran.univ-paris1.fr/web/packages/dplR/vignettes/intro-dplR.pdf Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. PhD
dis-sertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Roeper, T., Pearson, B. Z., & Grace, M. (2011). Quantifier spreading is not distrib-utive. Boston University Conference on Language Development, 35, 526–539. Roeper, T., Strauss, U., & Pearson, B. Z. (2006). The acquisition path of quantifiers:
Two kinds of spreading. Language Acquisition, 34.
Rouweler, L., & Hollebrandse, B. (2015). Distributive, collective and “everything” in between: Interpretation of universal quantifiers in child and adult language.
Lin-guistics in the Netherlands, 32(1), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.32.10rou
Safir, K., & Stowell, T. (1988). Binominal each. Proceedings of NELS, 18, 426–450. Scha, R. (1981). Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In
Groenendijk, Jeroen AG, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. B. J. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal
methods in the study of language (pp. 483–512). Mathematisch Centrum.
Schwarz, F. (2013). Maximality and definite plurals-experimental evidence.
Pro-ceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 509–526.
Schwarzschild, R. (1996). Pluralities. Springer Science & Business Media. Sekerina, I. A., & Sauermann, A. (2010). Processing of the Quantifier kazhdyj
‘every’in Russian. University of Maryland. Talk presented at 19th Workshop
on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics.
Sekerina, I. A., & Sauermann, A. (2015). Visual attention and quantifier-spreading in heritage Russian bilinguals. Second Language Research, 31(1), 75–104. Sekerina, I. A., & Sauermann, A. (2017). Quantifier spreading in child eye
move-ments: A case of the Russian quantifier kazhdyj ‘every’. Glossa: A Journal of
General Linguistics, 2(1).
Sekerina, I. A., Brooks, P. J., Campanelli, L., & Schwartz, A. M. (2018). Quantifier spreading in school-age children: An eye-tracking study. In K. É. Kiss & T. Zétényi (Eds.), Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of Quantification (pp. 171–192). Springer.
Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In J. T. Mc-Namara (Ed.), Language learning and thought (pp. 185–214). Academic Press, Inc.
Spenader, J., & Bosnić, A. (2018). Distributivity preferences for Dutch quantifiers elk and ieder. In B. Hollebrandse, J. Kim, A. T. P. Leroux, & P. Schulz (Eds.),
TOM and Grammar: Thoughts on Mind and Grammar: a Festschrift in Honor of Tom Roeper (Vol. 41). GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association),
Department of Linguistics
Stanley, J., & Gendler Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind &
S
Stanojević, V. (2008). Bare and Modified Cardinal Numerals in Serbian: Semantic Challenges and Interpretative Differences. Balkanistica, 21, 125–150. Swart, H. de, & Verkuyl, H. (1999). Tense and aspect in sentence and discourse.
Lecture Notes of the 11th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI).
Syrett, K., & Musolino, J. (2013). Collectivity, distributivity, and the interpreta-tion of plural numerical expressions in child and adult language. Language
Acquisition, 20(4), 259–291.
Syrett, K., Musolino, J., & Gelman, R. (2012). Number word acquisition: Cardinality, bootstrapping, and beyond: Reply to commentaries. Language Learning and
Development, 8(2), 190–195.
Tieu, L., Križ, M., & Chemla, E. (2019). Children’s acquisition of homogeneity in plural definite descriptions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2329.
Tovena, L. M. (2016). Le type Ratio parmi les configurations distributives. Travaux
De Linguistique(1), 135–151.
Tunstall, S. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics & processing. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Verkuyl, H. (1994). Distributivity and collectivity: a couple at odds. Dynamics,
Polarity and Quantification, 49–80.
Wechsler, S. (2009). Agreement features. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 384–405.
Winter, Y. (2000). Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics,
8(1), 27–69.
Winter, Y. (2001). Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics: The interpretation of
coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. MIT press.
Winter, Y. (2002). Atoms and sets: A characterization of semantic number. Linguistic
Inquiry, 33(3), 493–505.
Zimmermann, M. (2002a). A compositional analysis of anti-quantifiers as quan-tifiers. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 12, 332–338.
Zimmermann, M. (2002b). Boys buying two sausages each: On the syntax and
se-mantics of distance-distributivity. PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Zimmermann, M. (2008). Quantification in Hausa. Quantification: Universals and
Variation, 64, 415–475.
Summary
The main focus of this thesis is on different interpretations of distributive
marking in Serbian, Korean, and Dutch, and on experimentally teasing
apart the predictions of opposite semantic analyses proposed for a subset
of distributive markers in Serbian and Korean.
Our understanding of distributive markers across languages, although
researched thoroughly, is still far from complete. Cross-linguistically,
the ways in which distributive readings can be conveyed vary, and are
a fertile ground for comparative theoretical and experimental research.
For example, some languages have distributive markers that appear to
be very similar to universal distributive quantifiers such as every and
each, but turn out to have additional distributive interpretations, often
called event-distributive interpretations. In addition, they have different
morpho-syntactic properties than universal distributive quantifiers – they
mark the distributive share in a sentence, and are often referred to as
distributive share markers.
Broadly speaking, the distributive markers in question create a
relation-ship between two arguments in a sentence – the so-called distributive key
(DistKey) argument and the distributive share (DistShare) argument. While
there is an abundance of experimental evidence on universal distributive
quantifiers (also called distributive key (DistKey) markers), especially with
children (but also with adults), experimental studies of DistShare markers
remain scarce. This thesis contributes to the much needed experimental
data on the adult interpretation of DistShare markers in Serbian and
Korean, as well as acquisition data comparing languages with (i.e. Serbian)
and without (i.e. Dutch) DistShare markers. The studies conducted here
thus complement different theoretical accounts on DistShare markers
developed over the years and highlight the importance of doing
experi-mental investigations on the different semantic properties of these markers.
The DistKey/DistShare terminology is (partially) adopted from Choe
(1987) and Gil (1995). In a nutshell, the DistKey argument is the argument
that is being distributed over (similar to the restrictor of a quantifier), while
the DistShare argument is the argument that is being distributed (similar
to the nuclear scope of a quantifier). Distributive markers are syntactically
attached to the DistShare argument, hence the name. This property makes
these markers (at least syntactically) different from those that attach to the
DistKey argument. Thus, this particular terminology serves as the most
straight-forward typological and morpho-syntactic distinction between
two major types of distributive markers.
Let us first illustrate this phenomenon with an example from English
and Serbian in (1):
(1) a. Each child is holding a present. – English
each.distr child.sg aux holding a present.sg ‘Each child is holding a present.’
