Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14: Selected papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Stony Brook, NY
Edited by Lori Repetti and Francisco Ordóñez
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14] 2018
► pp. 215–229

Chapter 12
Dependent numerals and dependent existentials in Romanian

 | University of Bucharest
The paper discusses Romanian dependent indefinites (DepIndef’s) introduced by the distributive marker câte (/‘kɨ.te/). They come in two guises, referred to as dependent numerals (DepNum’s) in the configuration [câte num np], and dependent existentials (DepExist’s), in the configuration [câte sg-indef np]. The two marked indefinites are identical to their unmarked counterparts at the level of assertion. The narrower distribution of DepNum’s is an effect of the interaction between the numeral and certain Partition operators which license câte. The licensing condition of câte DPs in both guises states that these DPs must be under the scope of a D/Part operator in the terminology of Champollion (2016a,b). DepNum’s are associated with an event-dependent measure of cardinality.
Keywords: dependent indefinites, distributive operator, partition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The distribution of DepIndef’s in Romanian
    • 2.1Does “câte” supply distributivity?
    • 2.2What type of variable may serve as key?
      • 2.2.1DepNums
      • 2.2.2DepExist’s
  • 3.The licensing conditions of câte dependent indefinited
    • 3.1Champollion’s D and Part operators
    • 3.2Romanian DepNum and DepExist
      • 3.2.1The semantic contribution of “câte” in DepIndef’s
      • 3.2.2Universally quantified sentences
      • 3.2.3Temporal keys
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.14.12pan
References (17)
References
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Donka F. Farkas. 2011. “How Indefinites Choose Their Scope.” Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (1): 1–55.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Robert Henderson. 2009. “Varieties of distributivity: One by one vs. each.” Proceedings of SALT 19, ed. by Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito, and David Lutz, 55–72. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Champollion, Lucas. 2016a. “Overt Distributivity in Algebraic Event Semantics.” Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (16). 1–65.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. “Covert Distributivity in Algebraic Event Semantics.” Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (15). 1–66.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny, and Martin Honcoop. 1997. “The Semantics of Event-related Readings: a case for pair quantification.” In Ways of scope taking, ed. by Anna Szabolcsi, 263–310. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dotlacil, Jakub. 2015. “Why Is Distributivity so Hard? New Evidence from Distributive Markers and Licensors in Czech.” In Slavic Languages in the Perspective of Formal Grammar: Proceedings of FDSL 10.5, Brno 2014, ed. by Markéta Ziková, Pavel Caha, and Mojmír Docekal, 139–154. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2015. “Dependent Indefinites Revisited.” Presentation at the Workshop on (Co-)distributivity, Paris.
Henderson, Robert. 2016. “Variation in Dependent Indefinites.” Presentation at the Workshop on (Co-)distributivity, Paris.
Krifka, Manfred. 1990. “Four Thousand Ships Passed Through the Lock: Object-induced Measure Functions on Events.” Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 487–519.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oh, Sei-Rang. 2001. “Distributivity in an Event Semantics.” In 11th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 11), ed. by Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson, and Zsofia Zvolenszky, 326–345. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Plurality Markers across Languages.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Panaitescu, Mara. To appear. “Romanian Dependent Numerals as Ratios.” Proceedings of Going Romance 2015.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification . Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Each What? Individual-key and Event-key Distribution.” Presentation at the Workshop “Quantification”, Stuttgart.
Vlach, Frank. 1993. “Temporal Adverbials, Tenses and the Perfect.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (3): 231–283.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Linmin. 2013. “A Rate Analysis of Binominal Each”. Poster at the Mid-Atlantic Colloquium of Studies in Meaning 3.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2002. “Boys buying two sausages each: On the syntax and semantics of distance-distributivity.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar