8.1759, Qs: Determiners and Quantifiers
The LINGUIST List
linguist at linguistlist.org
Sat Dec 6 17:34:37 UTC 1997
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-1759. Sat Dec 6 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.
Subject: 8.1759, Qs: Determiners and Quantifiers
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>
Review Editor: Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>
Associate Editor: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editors: Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>
Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>
Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/
Editor for this issue: Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
==========================================================================
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
=================================Directory=================================
1)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:21:20 -0500
From: piroska at research.nj.nec.com (Piroska Csuri)
Subject: Determiners and Quantifiers
-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:21:20 -0500
From: piroska at research.nj.nec.com (Piroska Csuri)
Subject: Determiners and Quantifiers
DETERMINERS AND QUANTIFIERS
In building a lexicon for our syntactic parser, we started looking at
the properties of quantifiers and determiners, or whatever element may
appear at the "beginning" of a noun phrase in English (i.e., all the
stuff left of adjectives), including
a/an, the, this/that, some, any, no, all, both, each, every,
many, most much, few, several, any, either, cardinals, which,
whose, unstressed some, unstressed this, 's (possessive), etc.
In trying to come up with relevant-and-appropriate features for these
elements, we came up against a lot of questions - some might be obvious,
others might be trickier. We would like to know what is "out there"
regarding these questions. If you can provide us with insights or maybe
even answers to at least some of our questions, we would really
appreciate it.
Since the parser works with English, Turkish, Hungarian, German,
French, Spanish, Dutch, we are foremost interested in the properties
of quantifiers/determiners in these languages. On the other hand,
we would like to find a *principled* solution to the descriptive
problem (as much as it might be possible), so data from other languages
are also very important determining the relevant featural description
of the classes.
While some of the questions below might sound too broad or naive, this
might be due to the fact that I tried to be unassuming, and to avoid
anticipating any particular answer, so please bear with me.
Please send answers to
piroska at research.nj.nec.com
Finally, if there is enough interest, I will, of course, post a summary
to the list.
Thank you for any suggestions, pointers, or insights, whether pro or contra.
Piroska Csuri
NEC Research Institute
Princeton, NJ
******************** BEGINNING OF QUERY ******************************
NOTE: To avoid presupposing a possibly biassed determiner/quantifier
distinction, I will simply use the terms D/Q or D's/Q's. Once again,
the elements I am interested in are:
(0) a/an, the, this/that, some, any, no, all, both, each, every,
many, most much, few, several, any, either, cardinals, which,
whose, unstressed some, unstressed this, 's (possessive), etc.
QUESTIONS IN BRIEF:
1. What *principled* distinctions can one make between the class of
determiners and the class of quantifiers, whether on morphological,
syntactic, or semantic grounds? In other words, what makes a given
element a determiner, and what makes it a quantifier?
2. What features are needed to adequately describe the behavior of
determiners and quantifiers? Are there seperate features for determiners
and quantifiers, or rather a common array of features describes them?
3. Under what conditions can a determiner/quantifier appear without an
overt head noun, or with an "expletive noun" *one*?
4. What tests have been proposed to distinguish between strong and
weak NP's/determiners/quantifiers?
5. What tests can be used to distinguish the proportional v. cardinal
reading of quantifiers (and possibly of determiners)?
SOME QUESTIONS IN MORE DETAIL:
QUESTION 3. Under what conditions can a determiner/quantifier appear without an
overt head noun, or with an "expletive noun" *one*?
Determiners/quantifiers seem to split into three groups, depending on
whether they can appear without an overt head noun or can take "one":
(3.1) Without overt N: With "one":
================ ===========
which (of them) which one(s) (of them)
each (of them) each one (of them)
either (of them) either one (of them)
those (of them) those ones (of them)
few (of them) *few ones (of them)
all (of them) *all ones (of them)
both (of them) *both ones (of them)
some (of them) *some ones (of them)
three (of them) *three ones (of them)
*every (of them) every one (of them)
*no (of them) no one (of them)
Q. 3A: Does the possibility of appearing without an overt head noun or
with "one" correlate with other known properties of those D's/Q's
(other than the restriction that "one" must appear with count D's/Q's)
Q. 3B: Is it true that "one(s)" seems to not occur with weak D's/Q's
(although it might not appear with every strong D/Q)?
(3.2) *some ones
*a one
the one
every one
each one
Q. 3C: Is there any evidence, and if so what, that a covert head noun
should be assumed for cases where no overt head noun is present?
QUESTION 4. What tests have been proposed to distinguish between strong
and weak NP's/D's/Q's?
We are aware of existential sentences as contexts selecting for
weak readings/determiners/quantifiers:
(4.1) There was a/*the/*every/*either cow on the pasture.
were few/many/*these/*both/no cows
We are also aware of another potential test, which involves restrictive
relative clauses:
(4.2) Some/few/many men appeared who were wearing a hat.
*The/*Every man appeared who was wearing a hat.
Supposedly only weak NP's can appear in this context, while
strong NP's seem to be out.
Q. 4A: We are wondering, what other tests have been proposed to test
for the strong v. weak distinction?
Q. 4B: What evidence is there, if any, that strong v. weak D's/Q's
would appear in different syntactic positions?
Q. 4C: What evidence is there that in a syntactic tree a restrictive
relative clause would be attached lower than (i.e., is in the scope of)
the determiner?
QUESTION 5. What tests can be used to distinguish the proportional
v. cardinal reading of D's/Q's?
Some D's/Q's allow for two readings: proportional/quantificational
reading and a non-proportional/cardinal reading:
(5.1) Many children came to the party.
cardinal: the children who came to the party were many
proportional: of the children many came to the party
We know that existential sentences seem to select/allow only the
cardinal reading,
(5.2) There were many stars in the sky.
i.e. the stars that were in the sky were many
while individual-level predicates supposedly prefer (only allow?) the
proportional/quantificational reading:
(5.3) Many children like spinach.
i.e. of the children many like spinach
Q. 5A: Do individual-level predicates really only allow for a proportional
reading? A cardinal reading is available in this context:
(5.4) Three children like spinach.
Q. 5B: How does the proportional v. cardinal/quantificational v.
non-quantificational distinction relate to the strong/weak distinction?
************************** END OF QUERY *************************
Please send any resposes to:
piroska at research.nj.nec.com
Thank you again for your help and insights.
Piroska Csuri
NEC Research Institute
Princeton, NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-1759
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list