Off-campus UMass Amherst users: To download dissertations, please use the following link to log into our proxy server with your UMass Amherst user name and password.
Non-UMass Amherst users, please click the view more button below to purchase a copy of this dissertation from Proquest.
(Some titles may also be available free of charge in our Open Access Dissertation Collection, so please check there first.)
On the meaning of definite plural noun phrases
Abstract
Let us call a conjoined NP properly containing a plural "multiply plural." The boys and the girls is a multiply plural NP while John and Mary or the boys are "simply plural." The question addressed here is whether multiply plural NPs differ semantically from simply plural NPs. I contrast two theories which differ in their answer to this question as a result of a difference in the meaning they assign to and. According to one theory, the "union theory," every felicitous plural NP denotes a set-like entity all of whose members are individuals (individuals do not themselves have members). On the "sets theory," felicitous multiply plural NPs denote entities that have two or more members some or all of which are not individuals. For example, the boys and the girls, if felicitous, denotes an entity having two members, one being the entity denoted by the boys, the other the entity denoted by the girls. Each of these latter two entities have individuals as members. It follows on the sets theory that the boys and the girls refers to a different entity than does the NP the children. According to the union theory, the entity that the boys and the girls refers to has only individuals as members. It is the same entity that the children refers to. Syntactic complexity is mirrored in semantic complexity on the sets theory but not on the union theory. I will argue that English predicate extensions are not sensitive to the semantic distinctions present exclusively in the sets. The distinctions of the sets theory cannot therefore affect truth conditions and hence it should yield to the union theory. In the course of this argument, I introduce a new context dependent analysis of distributivity. The apparent coreference, in some contexts, of singular collective and plural terms, for example the Senate and the Senators, has been used to argue for the sets theory. In response, I argue that the referent of a singular collective NP is different in kind from the referent of a non-collective plural.
Subject Area
Linguistics
Recommended Citation
Schwarzschild, Roger Selig, "On the meaning of definite plural noun phrases" (1991). Doctoral Dissertations Available from Proquest. AAI9120936.
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI9120936