Chapter 1
Numerals and their kin
Marcin Wągiel
Masaryk University in Brno
Keywords: numerals, cardinals, numerical expressions, labels
1 Introduction
Numerals are funny words. On the one hand, it seems they share some core component
that justifies grouping them together as if they formed a single category,
a practice common in both descriptive and theoretic approaches to language.1
On the other hand, though, morphologically and syntactically they form a very
heterogeneous class of expressions with different items often exhibiting distinct
properties. This is the case not only when one compares various subclasses of
numerals, e.g., cardinals, ordinals and multiplicatives, but also often within the
subclass of cardinals different items have adjectival, nominal, or both nominal
and adjectival features while in some languages they seem to behave as verbs
(Donohue 2005; Ionin & Matushansky 2018).
In generative linguistics, a lot of work has been focused on establishing the
syntactic status of numerals with different approaches differing in whether they
are lexical or functional categories or whether they are heads or maximal projections.
These questions have been studied thoroughly with respect to Slavic
numerals with their well-known idiosyncratic properties (e.g., Babby 1987; Pesetsky
1982; Franks 1994; Rutkowski 2002; Klockmann 2012).
On the other hand, since the early days of analytic philosophy and formal semantics
a lot of attention has been dedicated to the meaning of numerals. At
1This intuition dates back at least to the Neo-Latin grammarian tradition which distinguished
three subclasses within the category nomen, i.e., nomen substantivum, nomen adjectivum and
nomen numerale.
Marcin Wągiel. Numerals and their kin. To appear in: Change Volume Editor & in localcommands.tex
Change volume title in localcommands.tex Berlin: Language Science Press. [preliminary page numbering]
Marcin Wągiel
least from Frege (1884), it has been recognized that capturing the semantics of
cardinals is far from trivial. Intuitively, it seems straightforward that they are
linguistic expressions that somehow describe a numeric quantity. However, beyond
this vague characterization it is much less obvious how to state exactly
what they actually are.
In this paper, I will discuss the main formal approaches to the meaning of cardinal
numerals. In doing so, I will also focus on examining two issues that only
recently have attracted due attention in the semantic literature. Specifically, I will
investigate different uses of cardinals as well as various derivationally complex
quantifying expressions in Slavic. The two sets of data indicate that cardinals
are typally flexibile and that numerals in general are semantically complex expressions.
I will argue that a proper approach to the meaning of numerals should
describe a compositional mechanism deriving different semantic flavors from the
underlying arithmetical meaning.
The paper is outlined as follows. In §2, I will discuss various functions of cardinal
numerals. §3 will provide an overview of different semantic approaches to
the quantifying function of cardinals, as in five cats. Next, §4 will explore the relationship
between the quantifying meaning and the ability of cardinals to refer to
abstract arithmetical concepts. Finally, in §5, I will review the literature on the
morpho-semantics of complex numerical expressions in Slavic which presents
evidence calling for a compositional treatment.
2 Cardinals and their various flavors
Let us start with cardinal numerals. One of the challenges in accounting for their
meaning is that they can be used in very different ways (Bultinck 2005; Geurts
2006). Consider, for instance, (1). It turns out that a simple word such as English
five is in fact quite tricky. Of course, it can be used to quantify over entities
denoted by the modified NP when it appears prenominally as in (1a) but that is
surely not the only function it can have. For instance, when it combines with
a measure word as in (1b), it designates a portion of a substance rather than a
plurality of objects. It can also appear in a predicative context such as (1c) or as
part of a measure phrase like in (1d). And that is not it since it can also be used to
refer to an abstract arithmetical concept, see (1e), or to label an entity as in (1f).
(1) a. Five cats meowed.
b. Five liters of milk got spilled.
c. These are five cats.
ii
Numerals and their kin
d. That cat is five years old.
e. Five is a Fibonacci number.
f. Tram number five has just left.
Below, I will briefly discuss how the measure, predicative and arithmetical function
of cardinal numerals relate to their most deeply studied quantifying use.2 A
thorough investigation into properties of the label function will be undertaken
in §⁇.
2.1 Quantifying vs. measure use
For many years, the mainstream research has been primarily focused on the quantifying
use of cardinals exemplified in (1a). This seems justified since counting
objects is perhaps the first thing that comes to mind when we think about expressions
such as five. However, when a numeral appears in a measure phrase
such as (1b), it seems to be involved in measuring within a certain dimension,
e.g., volume, rather than in counting objects.
Intuitively, the difference between counting and measuring is that the former
is about specifying how many discrete objects of a certain kind there are, whereas
the latter determines some quantity in relevant measure units. Admittedly, some
proposals attempt to reduce measuring to a particular type of counting based
on the individuation in terms of quantity (Lyons 1977; Matushansky & Zwarts
2017). Consequently, measuring would simply be counting units determined by
measure words. An opposing approach treats counting as a form of measuring,
i.e., measuring a quantity of a plural individual in terms of natural or object units
(Krifka 1989; 1995). Yet, there is also the third account which views counting and
measuring as two independent operations (Rothstein 2017).
The contrast between the two functions becomes clear when one considers
classifier constructions involving container nouns, see (2). Such expressions are
ambiguous between a measure (content) and counting (container) interpretation
(e.g., Landman 2004; Grimshaw 2007; Partee & Borschev 2012). On the measure
reading of (2a), Tomek flushed wine to the quantity of two bottles. On the counting
reading, on the other hand, he did something quite spectacular since two
actual bottles containing wine went down. Moreover, derivational morphology
seems to be sensitive to the distinction since the suffix -ful selects only for the
measure sense of a container noun, compare (2b)–(2c) (Rothstein 2011).
2For an exhaustive discussion of numeral NPs interpreted as measure phrases in Slavic, see
Matushansky & Ionin (this volume).
iii
Marcin Wągiel
(2) a. Tomek flushed two bottles of wine through the toilet.
b. Romek added two { glasses / glassfuls } of wine to the soup.
c. Marek brought two { glasses / #glassfuls } of wine for our guests.
Another argument for distinguishing counting and measuring as two distinct operations
comes from distinct restrictions on the domain of quantification (Wągiel
2018). Though both measuring and counting quantify over entities that need to
be disjoint (Landman 2016), only the latter requires objects individuated as coherent
integrated wholes. To realize the contrast, imagine someone has spilled some
wine on the table in such a way that there are two separate blobs 𝑎 and 𝑏 whose
volume is exactly one and a half milliliters each. In such a scenario, (3a) is true
despite the fact that one of the three milliliters must be split between a portion of
𝑎 and a portion of 𝑏. On the other hand, (3b) is simply false. This contrast shows
that measuring, unlike counting, ignores individuation in terms of integrity.
(3) Scenario: There are exactly two 1.5 ml blobs of wine on the table.
a. There are three milliliters of wine on the table. true
b. There are three objects on the table. false
Though monotonic systems of measurement track certain part-whole relations
(Schwarzschild 2002), they do not seem to be sensitive to the spatial arrangement
of parts making up a whole. This suggests that despite sharing a common core
counting and measuring are two distinct things.
2.2 Quantifying vs. predicative use
It is well known that cardinals used as quantifiers give rise to scalar implicatures.
For instance, five cats in (4a) allows for an at least reading, as witnessed by the
compatibility with the in fact clause. Similarly, (4b) is typically interpreted in a
way that Rumcajs must take at least three cards.
(4) a. Five cats live in the barn; in fact, six cats live there.
b. Rumcajs must take three cards.
However, numeral NPs in predicate position systematically lack a lower-bounded
interpretation (Partee 1986; Landman 2003; Geurts 2006). For instance, (5a) can
only get the exactly reading. This is further corroborated by the infelicity of sentences
such as (5b).
(5) a. These are five cats.
iv
Numerals and their kin
b. # The guests are three filmmakers; in fact, they are four filmmakers.
Furthermore, it has been observed that also bare cardinals can appear as predicates
in predicate position, see (6a)–(6b) (Rothstein 2017). This resembles the
behavior of adjectives rather than determiners.
(6) a. The apostles are twelve.
b. The planets are eight.
Similarly to numeral NPs, bare cardinals in predicate position lack an at least
reading. Thus both (6a) and (6b) are true if there are exactly twelve apostles and
exactly eight planets, respectively. Furthermore, sentences such as (7) are infelic-
itous.
(7) # My reasons for saying this are four; in fact they are five.
The contrasts discussed above indicate that meaning of the predicative use of
cardinals differs from their semantics in the quantifying function.
2.3 Quantifying vs. arithmetical use
It is not always the case that cardinals designate a plurality or measure. In (1e),
five refers to an abstract number concept rather than to a collection of entities.
In this use, cardinals have different properties than in their quantifying function
(Bultinck 2005; Rothstein 2017; Wągiel & Caha 2020). Specifically, number
concepts can have special properties such as being prime, see (8a), and they can
occur in mathematical statements such as (8b) and dedicated grammatical construction
as in (8c). When compared, the dimension of comparison is based on
their relative ordering, see (8d).
(8) a. Five is prime.
b. Ten divided by five equals two.
c. Hanna can count up to five.
d. Five is bigger than four.
This behavior contrasts with cardinals in their quantifying function, which lack
the properties mentioned above. (9a) is odd since being prime is not a property
that can be attributed to a collection of things. Similarly, expressions denoting a
plurality of entities are illicit in constructions calling for a numeric value such as
(9b)–(9c). Finally, (9d) has different truth conditions than (8d), e.g., it would not
be true if one compared five cherries with four watermelons.
v
Marcin Wągiel
(9) a. # Five things are prime.
b. # Ten things divided by five things equals two things.
c. # Hanna can count up to five things.
d. # Five things are bigger than four things.
Furthermore, cardinals referring to number concepts are incompatible with numeral
modifiers such as more than and at least, see (10a). Finally, the arithmetical
function does not give rise to scalar implicatures and always get an exactly reading,
as witnessed in (10b).
(10) a. # More than five is prime.
b. # Two multiplied by five equals ten, if not more.
As we have seen, cardinal numerals can be used in various ways each of which
has different semantic characteristics. In the next two sections, I will review major
approaches to the meaning of cardinals and compare how they account for
at least some aspects of the flexibility discussed above.
3 Theories of cardinals
Given the variety of uses discussed in the previous section, any quest for ‘the’
meaning of cardinal numerals is probably a misunderstanding. Rather, a theory
of cardinals should be able to capture the relationship between meanings of cardinals
in their various functions. And yet, the mainstream research has been mainly
focused on the quantifying use often ignoring how it relates to other uses with
Bylinina & Nouwen’s 2020 systematic inquiry being a notable exception).
3.1 Cardinals as determiners
Let us start with the earliest and most prominent formal account of the meaning
of cardinal numerals, namely the standard Generalized Quantifiers (GQ) approach
(Barwise & Cooper 1981; though it can be traced back via Montague to
Frege). The intuition behind this analysis is that a cardinal such as English five is
in fact a determiner similar to some, most or all, as suggested by its occurrence
in prenominal position as in (11).
(11) { Some / Most / All / Five } cats meowed.
vi
Numerals and their kin
In the GQ theory, a determiner expresses a particular relation holding between
two sets (type ⟨⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩, ⟨⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩, 𝑡⟩⟩), i.e., a set denoted by the NP and a set denoted by
the VP. For instance, in (11) some yields the truth value True if the intersection
between the set of cats and the set of entities that meowed is non-empty, see
(12a). Similarly, on the GQ analysis five returns True if the cardinality of the set
of cats and the set of entities that meowed equals 5, see (12b).
(12) a. some = 𝜆𝑃𝜆𝑄[𝑃 ∩ 𝑄 ≠ ∅]
b. five = 𝜆𝑃𝜆𝑄[|𝑃 ∩ 𝑄| = 5]
A nice thing about the GQ approach is that it aims to develop a unified semantics
of all quantified DPs. Furthermore, it can be enriched with a type-shifting mechanism
which allows for systematic mapping between different semantic types
(Partee 1986). Consequently, the theory can account for predicative uses of numeral
NPs such as (1c) by lowering the type of a general quantifier (⟨⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩, 𝑡⟩) to
the type of a predicate (⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩).
However, for some time it has been realized that the GQ approach is most probably
not a good way of capturing what cardinals are (e.g., Krifka 1999; Landman
2003). In the next sections, I will briefly discuss problematic data and alternative
approaches.
3.2 Cardinals as predicates
There are several problems with the GQ approach to cardinals. First of all, there
is a well-known asymmetry between DPs with numerals and DPs with regular
determiners in predicate position. For instance, DPs headed by every cannot be
used predicatively, see (13a). Similarly, examples such as (13b) are infelicitous on
a non-partitive interpretation. Given the felicity of sentences such as (1c) and
others discussed in §2.2, this fact is puzzling (e.g., Landman 2003).
(13) a. # Hanna is every filmmaker at the party.
b. # The guests are { most / some } filmmakers.
Furthermore, as witnessed in (14a) bare determiners also cannot be used predicatively.
This contrasts with examples such as (6), in which cardinals pattern with
adjectives, see (14b). Since there is no standard type-shifting rule allowing for
mapping the type of determiners (⟨⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩, ⟨⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩, 𝑡⟩⟩) onto the type of predicates
(⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩), the predicative use of bare cardinals is unaccounted for. But even if such a
rule were postulated, it would still fail to explain the contrast between cardinals
and determiners such most and all.
vii
Marcin Wągiel
(14) a. # My reasons for saying this are { most / all / every }.
b. My reasons for saying this are { serious / personal / five }.
The last problematic data point to be discussed here concerns the fact that cardinals
can appear along with bona fide determiners within a single DP (e.g., Rothstein
2017). From the GQ perspective, the compatibility of five with the definite
article in (15a) and with every in (15b) is unexpected and raises serious questions
regarding the semantic contribution of each of the elements.
(15) a. The five cats that I saw meowed.
b. Every two students got to share a hotel room.
The evidence discussed above motivated developing an alternative approach which
treats cardinals as predicates (Landman 2003; 2004). Within such a framework,
cardinals get an interpretation very similar to that of intersective adjectives,
specifically they express a cardinality property. For this approach to work, it
is required to distinguish between two types of entities within the domain of individuals,
namely atoms, i.e., singular entities, and pluralities (Link 1983). While
atoms are minimal elements of a nominal denotation, pluralities are formed from
atoms via a pluralization operation * which closes the predicate under sum, i.e.,
takes a set of atomic entities and returns that set extended with all the pluralities
that can be formed by summing the atoms. In addition, the two types of individuals
are associated with each other via a part-whole relation defined in terms of
mereological parthood, e.g., an atomic entity 𝑎 is part of a plurality 𝑎 + 𝑏.3
According to the semantics provided in (16a), five denotes a set of pluralities
each of which contains 5 atomic entities. Similarly to intersective adjectives, cardinals
combine with NPs they modify via Predicate Modification (Heim & Kratzer
1998). Therefore, when five is composed with cats, see (16b), the resulting phrase
denotes the intersection of a set of pluralities of cats and a set of plural individuals
that consist of five atomic entities, i.e., a set of sums of five cats.
(16) a. five = 𝜆𝑥 [#(𝑥) = 5]
b. five cats = 𝜆𝑥[*cat(𝑥) ∧ #(𝑥) = 5]
The approach discussed above gives a straightforward explanation for the contrasts
between cardinals and determiners such every and most in predicate position
as well as the well-formedness and felicity of constructions such as those in
(15). However, it faces some challenges as well.
3For an introduction to mereological theories of plurality, see, e.g., Champollion & Krifka (2016).
viii
Numerals and their kin
3.3 Cardinals as predicate modifiers
A problem with treating cardinals as cardinal properties is that cross-linguistically
the use of bare cardinals in predicate position is very restricted (Ionin & Matushansky
2018: 33–34). For instance, in Russian (17) is ungrammatical. Similarly,
Dutch (18) can only mean that the children are two years old and not that they
are two in number. And even in English the predicative use of bare cardinals is
heavily restrained, as witnessed by the fact that examples such as (19) are highly
degraded. If cardinals are assigned type ⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩, then this is rather startling.
(17) * Deti
children
byli
were
{ dva
two
/ dvoe }.
two.gndr
Russian
Intended: ‘The children were two in number.’
(18) # De
the
kinderen
children
zijn
are
twee.
two
Dutch
Intended: ‘The children are two in number.’
(19) ⁇ The chairs in this room are twelve.
Another issue concerns the fact that what counts as ‘one’ seems to be highly dependent
on the meaning of the NP the cardinal combines with. Arguably, atoms
should be defined relative to a particular property rather than in absolute terms.
To see why, let us consider partitive constructions such as those in (20) (cf. Chierchia
2010; Wągiel 2018). Example (20a) is weird since the numeral NP designates
triples of body parts and cannot be understood as referring to three pluralities of
boys. Yet, in (20b) quantification over subgroups of boys is possible. Importantly,
neither parts of the boys nor parts of the group denote entities that are atomic in
any absolute sense. The first is true of portions of matter whose parts are also
parts of the boys. Similarly, the latter designates subgroups which themselves
can also consist of subgroups of boys. This suggests that the cardinal determines
what counts as ‘one’ relative to the denotation of the modified NP (and possibly
some contextual hints, see Rothstein 2010) and it is not obvious how this fact
could be captured if cardinals were interpreted simply as intersective predicates.
(20) a. # Three parts of the boys were sleeping.
b. Three parts of the group were sleeping.
A prominent alternative to treating cardinals as cardinal properties is to analyze
them as predicate modifiers (type ⟨⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩, ⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩⟩) equipped with a pluralization
ix
Marcin Wągiel
operation * and a measure function #(𝑃) (Krifka 1989; 1995). In (21a), * closes
the predicate under sum, i.e., takes a set of atomic entities and returns that set
extended with all the pluralities one can form by summing atoms. On the other
hand, the operation # returns for a property 𝑃 a measure function that yields
pluralities of five individuals having that property. In other words, five maps
pluralities of entities onto the natural number 5.4 When the cardinal combines
with an NP, after the predicate slot is saturated we obtain a set of relevant plural
individuals (type ⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩). For instance, five cats denotes a set of pluralities of cats
each of which consists of five cats, see (21b). Thus, what counts as ‘one’ in this
system is relativized to the denotation of the NP.
(21) a. five = 𝜆𝑃⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 [*𝑃(𝑥) ∧ #(𝑃)(𝑥) = 5]
b. five cats = 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 [*cat(𝑥) ∧ #(cat)(𝑥) = 5]
Another possibility is to interpret cardinals as predicate modifiers providing the
cardinality of a partition of a plural individual (Ionin & Matushansky 2006; 2018).
A partition of a plurality 𝑥 is a cover of 𝑥, i.e., a set of entities such that the sum
of all those entities forms 𝑥; in addition, it is a cover whose cells do not overlap,
i.e., do not share any parts (cf. Gillon 1987; Schwarzschild 1996). In (22a), 𝑆 is
a partition Π of an individual 𝑥 and the cardinality of 𝑆 equals 5. The cardinal
combines with the NP via standard Function Application and the result is of
type ⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩. For instance, five cats gets the meaning in (22b), i.e., it denotes a set of
pluralities divisible into 5 non-overlapping entities each of which has a property
of being a cat.5
(22) a. five = 𝜆𝑃⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ 𝜆𝑥 𝑒∃𝑆⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ [Π(𝑆)(𝑥) ∧ |𝑆| = 5 ∧ ∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆[𝑃(𝑠)]]
b. five cats = 𝜆𝑥 𝑒∃𝑆⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ [Π(𝑆)(𝑥) ∧ |𝑆| = 5 ∧ ∀𝑠 ∈ 𝑆[ cat (𝑠)]]
Notice, however, that both approaches discussed above require the denotation
of NPs the cardinal combines with to be singular, i.e., to consist only of atoms. It
is postulated that the source of plurality is the numeral and the plural marking
on the noun is, e.g., due to agreement with no semantic interpretation. Supporting
evidence comes from expressions such as those in (23) where the plural is
not associated with a plurality (Krifka 1989; Bylinina & Nouwen 2018) as well as
4This is a slight simplification since in fact Krifka (1989) postulates a special operation nu for
measuring pluralities in terms of ‘natural units’ they consist of, whereas Krifka (1995) proposes
ou for measuring the number of ‘object units’ realizing a particular kind.
5The system is devised this way in order to provide a unified analysis of both simple and complex
numerals such as five hundred. For a more detailed discussion of the approach, see Matushansky
& Ionin (this volume).
x
Numerals and their kin
from languages such as Finnish and Turkish which display the singular/plural
distinction but in which unlike in, say, English cardinals systematically require
singular NPs, see (24).
(23) a. zero students
b. 1.0 students
(24) üç
three
{ çocuk
child
/ *çocuklar }
children
Turkish
‘three children’
Finally, analyzing cardinals as predicate modifiers makes it easier to account for
restrictions on bare cardinals in predicate position, see (18)–(19), by appealing to
the well-described peculiarities of the copula which would allow for a type-shift
only under particular circumstances (Ionin & Matushansky 2018: 33–34).
3.4 Cardinals as degree quantifiers
The last approach to be discussed in this sections builds on two observations regarding
the behavior of cardinals. The first observation is that sentences with
existential modals such as those in (25) are ambiguous (Kennedy 2013; 2015). On
the strong reading, (25a) means that Hanna is allowed to eat five cookies and she
is not allowed to eat more. The strong reading is probably the most natural interpretation
of (25a). There is, however, also a weak reading which merely states
that eating five cookies by Hanna is allowed without saying anything about eating
other quantities of cookies. This interpretation becomes more prominent in
questions, see (25b).
(25) a. Hanna is allowed to eat five cookies.
b. Is Hanna allowed to eat five cookies?
The second observation is that numerals can take scope independently of the rest
of the NP. The evidence comes from decimals in sentences such as (26a) (Kennedy
& Stanley 2009). Crucially, it does not entail the existence of families with 2.1 cats.
This contrasts with (26b) which is infelicitous due to such an entailment.
(26) a. The average Polish family has 2.1 cats.
b. # A normal Polish family has 2.1 cats.
xi
Marcin Wągiel
The data discussed above suggest that cardinal numerals are in fact quantifiers.
We have already seen that the analysis of five as a determiner is most probably
incorrect and obviously treating it as a generalized quantifier over individuals
(type ⟨⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩, 𝑡⟩) would not make much sense. However, an interesting idea is to
interpret cardinals as quantifiers over degrees, i.e., expressions of type ⟨⟨𝑑, 𝑡⟩, 𝑡⟩
(Kennedy 2013; 2015). Degrees (type 𝑑) are objects similar to individuals (type 𝑒)
with the crucial difference that the domain of degrees 𝐷 𝑑, unlike the domain of
individuals 𝐷 𝑒, is ordered.6 Hence, on the degree quantifier analysis five denotes a
set of degree properties whose maximal value equals 5, see (27a). A sentence with
a numeral NP would be then interpreted as in (27b), e.g., the maximal number of
entities that Hanna had and that are cats is 5.
(27) a. five = 𝜆𝐷⟨𝑑,𝑡 ⟩ [max(𝐷) = 5]
b. Hanna had five cats =
= max{𝑛 | ∃𝑥[had(𝑥)(hanna) ∧ *cat(𝑥) ∧ #(𝑥) = 𝑛)} = 5
The analysis of cardinals as degree quantifiers provides a promising perspective
to explain interactions between modals and both unmodified and modified cardinals
such as more than five and at least five (Nouwen 2010). In the next section,
I will discuss the arithmetical function of cardinals and how it relates to the theories
described so far.
4 Relating cardinalities and number concepts
The theories of cardinal numerals discussed so far focus on the quantifying function.
However, as we have already seen in (1e) and §2.3, cardinals can also be
used to refer to abstract numeric values.
4.1 Cardinals as names of numbers
On the arithmetical function, cardinals seem to behave as proper names of number
concepts (type 𝑛) or, alternatively, degrees (type 𝑑).7 From this perspective,
the arithmetical meaning of five is simply the number 5, see (28a). Expressions
such as prime would then denote properties of numbers (type ⟨𝑛, 𝑡⟩). For instance
6For more discussion on degrees and an introduction to degree semantics, see, e.g., Morzycki
(2016: Ch. 3).
7Throughout the paper, I will assume there is no difference between the two notions and following
the widespread convention in the literature on the arithmetical use of cardinals I will
simply use the label 𝑛.
xii
Numerals and their kin
the extension of (28b) would be the set {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, . . . }. On the other hand,
expressions used to formulate mathematical statements such as plus, times, divided
by and equals seem to describe relations between number concepts. For
instance, (28c) is interpreted in terms of addition of two numeric values.
(28) a. five = 5
b. prime = 𝜆𝑛 𝑛 [prime(𝑛)]
c. plus = 𝜆𝑛 𝑛 𝜆𝑚 𝑛 [𝑛 + 𝑚]
The key question is what the relationship between names of number concepts,
i.e., the arithmetical use, and meanings of cardinals used in the quantifying function
is. In the next sections, I will discuss two possible approaches to how to
relate the two meanings.
4.2 Deriving number concepts from cardinalities
The mainstream view is to take the quantifying meaning as basic, be it the predicate,
predicate modifier or degree quantifier analysis, and to derive the arithmetical
meaning from it. Let us discuss three variants of that view.
As we have already seen in §3.2, on the predicate analysis cardinals are interpreted
as denoting a cardinal property, see (29a). Rothstein (2017) assumes this
semantics to be basic.8 The arithmetical meaning is then derived via a special
type-shifting operation ∩ which when applied to a cardinal property yields a
proper name, see (29b).
(29) a. five ⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ = 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 [#(𝑥) = 5]
b. five 𝑛 = ∩ five ⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ = 5
The proposal is seemingly motivated by an analogy with adjectival and nominal
uses of expressions such as white. It builds on Chierchia (1985)’s theory of
predication according to which every property has an entity correlate of type 𝜋
derived by ∩. For instance, the predicate white can be turned into the name of
the property of being white. Similarly, ∩ turns five into the name of a property
of being five in number.
However, as argued convincingly by Ionin & Matushansky (2018: 31–33) this
analogy does not hold since arithmetical environments such as those discussed
in §2.3 require the number 5 itself as an argument rather than the property of
8In fact, this is a slight simplification since the theory distinguishes typally between lower numerals
and ‘lexical powers’, i.e., multiplicands such as hundred in five hundred.
xiii
Marcin Wągiel
being five in number. Consequently, in order to derive the arithmetical function
Ionin & Matushansky (2018: 26–27) propose a null suffix nomnum which is a
nominalizer that when applied to a predicate modifier, turns it into a numeric
singular term. More specifically, for any cardinal numeral it yields the corresponding
cardinality. An argument for such an account comes from the fact that
cardinal numerals as names of numbers display full morpho-syntactic uniformity
suggesting they are derived expressions. On the other hand, cardinals in
the quantifying function often show variation with respect to 𝜙-features, e.g.,
grammatical gender.
Another mode of relating the arithmetical and quantifying meaning is proposed
by Kennedy (2015). The idea is to derive the first from the latter by the
standard type-shifting operations be and iota defined in (30a) and (30b), respectively
(Partee 1986). be takes a quantifier and returns a property. On the other
hand, iota yields the unique entity of which the relevant property is true.
(30) a. be = 𝜆P⟨⟨𝑒,𝑡,⟩,𝑡 ⟩ 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 [P(𝜆𝑦 𝑒 [𝑦 = 𝑥])]
b. iota = 𝜆𝑃⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ 𝜄𝑥 [𝑃(𝑥)]
Generalizing the type-shifts defined above so that they can also apply to quantifiers
over degrees and properties of degrees (or numbers), respectively, allows
to derive the arithmetical meaning by applying be and iota consecutively to the
degree quantifier semantics. Specifically, when be applies to a set of degree properties
whose maximal value equals 5, see (27a), the result in (31a) is the singleton
set {5}. The subsequent application of iota yields the number 5, as shown in
(31b).
(31) a. be( five ) = 𝜆𝑛 𝑛 [𝑛 = 5]
b. iota(be( five )) = iota(𝜆𝑛 𝑛 [𝑛 = 5]) = 5
A nice feature of such an approach is that it allows to relate the quantifying
and arithmetical functions using standard independently motivated type-shifting
machinery. In the next section, I will discuss accounts that derive cardinalities
from the arithmetical meaning.
4.3 Deriving cardinalities from number concepts
Though the view that the quantifying function of cardinals is the basic one seems
to have become mainstream, there are a number of approaches that build on a
contrary intuition, namely that underlyingly cardinal numerals are simply names
of number concepts (Scha 1981; Krifka 1989; Zabbal 2005; Scontras 2013; 2014;
xiv
Numerals and their kin
Wągiel 2018). According to that alternative view, cardinals in prenominal position
are in fact syntactically and semantically complex expressions derived from
the arithmetical meaning via various shifts.
An early theory of cardinals postulating that they are derived from number
concepts was developed by Scha (1981). This system distinguishes between numbers,
numerals and numerical determiners. The first simply denote number concepts.
On the other hand, the numeral head shifts an integer (type 𝑛) to a cardinal
predicate while the numerical D head transforms such a cardinal predicate into
a determiner with a GQ-style semantics, see (32).9
(32) [ d⟨⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩,⟨⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩,𝑡 ⟩⟩ [ numeral⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ [ number 𝑛 five ] ] ]
A related idea is the core of the system developed by Hackl (2000) who makes
use of a covert quantificational operator many in order to turn a number concept
into a determiner, see (33a). On this approach, the cardinal on its quantifying use
is accompanied with an additional null element that ensures the shift, as depicted
in (33b). The result combines with the denotation of the NP to form a generalized
quantifier.
(33) a. many = 𝜆𝑛 𝑛 𝜆𝑃⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ 𝜆𝑄⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩∃𝑥 𝑒 [#(𝑥) = 𝑛 ∧ 𝑃(𝑥) ∧ 𝑄(𝑥)]
b. five cats = [ [ 5 many ] cats ]
Another proposal on how to derive the quantifying meaning from a name of
a number concept dates back to Krifka (1995). On this view, all cardinals are
assumed to underlyingly designate number concepts but they also involve an
additional classifier element that depending on a language can be either overt
or covert. There are several variants of this approach but what they all share
is that such a classifier element takes an integer and returns a counting device
equipped with an appropriate measure function, see (34a) (Scontras 2013; 2014;
Wągiel 2018). For instance, in the derivation of the phrase five cats the name of a
number concept is first turned into a quantifying predicate modifier which then
combines with the noun to yield the meaning in (34b).
(34) a. cl = 𝜆𝑛 𝑛 𝜆𝑃⟨𝑒,𝑡 ⟩ 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 [*𝑃(𝑥) ∧ #(𝑃)(𝑥) = 𝑛]
b. five cats = [ [ 5 cl ] cats ] = 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 [*cat(𝑥) ∧ #(𝑥) = 5]
9The exact denotation of the numerical determiner depends on whether the whole sentence
gets a collective, distributive or cover reading. In other words, there are three distinct Ds each
of which deriving a different interpretation.
xv
Marcin Wągiel
In yet another variant of the discussed approach, the classifier semantics turns an
arithmetical concept into a predicate (Sudo 2016). The classifier takes a numeric
value and yields a cardinal property (type ⟨𝑒, 𝑡⟩) rather than a predicate modifier.
In addition, it can introduce a special presupposition concerning the nature of
referents of the modified noun. The resulting expression then combines with the
NP via Predicate Modification.
From the theoretical perspective both types of relationship between the arithmetical
and quantifying function, i.e., the derivation from the quantifying meaning
to the arithmetical meaning and vice versa, seem plausible. Thus, the question
which one is correct appears to be an empirical issue. In §4.2, we have already
seen that certain aspects of cardinals’ morphology have been argued to support
the quantifying-function-is-basic view. In the next section, I will discuss a different
type of evidence that can be useful in determining the direction of the
derivation.
4.4 Morphological evidence
It has been observed that many languages distinguish formally between so-called
counting, i.e., arithmetical, and attributive, i.e., quantifying, numerals (Hurford
1998; 2001). For instance, in Mandarin the cardinal èr (‘two’) is used in arithmetical
environments whereas liǎng (‘two’) is an attributive form appearing in
the quantifying use. Similarly, the Maltese numeral tnejn (‘two’) indicates the
arithmetical function while żewġ (‘two’) has the quantifying meaning. Though
the distinction in question is typically restricted to a subset of cardinals in a language
and there are a number of patterns of how the two forms can differ, it is a
relatively widespread phenomenon across languages.
Interestingly, the two families of theories discussed above make different predictions
regarding the morphological make-up of cardinal numerals cross-linguistically.
On the assumption that morphology expresses meaning, if the arithmetical
function is derived from the quantifying function, see §4.2, then we
would expect that across languages a pattern with arithmetical cardinals being
morphologically more complex than quantifying cardinals should be relatively
widespread. This is because an additional affix is expected to introduce a shift
from a counting device to a number concept. On the other hand, if the quantifying
function is derived from the arithmetical one, see §4.3, then we would expect
an inverse pattern to be common. Namely, quantifying cardinals should include
an additional morpheme encoding a shift from number concepts to quantifying
modifiers.
It turns out that the cross-linguistically widespread asymmetry attested, e.g.,
xvi
Numerals and their kin
in many obligatory classifier languages, is of the latter type (Wągiel to appear;
Wągiel & Caha 2020). For instance, bare cardinals in Japanese cannot modify
NPs and require an additional element, traditionally referred to as a classifier, see
(35a).10 However, such an element is illicit in an arithmetical environment like
(35b) despite the fact that ko being a general classifier could be used to indicate
any type of inanimate entity.
(35) a. { *go-no
five-gen
/ go-ko-no }
five-cl-gen
ringo
apple
Japanese
‘five apples’
b. juu
ten
waru
divided
{ go-wa
five-top
/ #go-ko-wa }
five-cl-top
ni-da.
two-cop
‘Ten divided by five equals two.’
Therefore, it seems that the approaches that derive the arithmetical semantics
from the quantifying one make incorrect predictions with respect to meaning/
form correspondences in cardinal numerals cross-linguistically. However, there
is a twist here since a pattern with more complex arithmetical cardinals is also
attested, though scarce. For instance, in German the arithmetical cardinal for 1
consists of an additional morpheme compared to its quantifying equivalent, see
(36).
(36) a. { ein
one
/ *ein-s }
one-nbr
Mädchen
girl
German
‘one girl’
b. Zehn
ten
geteilt
divided
durch
by
{ *ein
one
/ ein-s }
one-nbr
ist
is
gleich
equal
zehn.
ten
‘Ten divided by one equals ten.’
The pattern attested in German is puzzling and seemingly indicates that both
types of the relationship between the two functions in question are possible.
Nevertheless, it can be accounted for by postulating a more complex morphosemantic
structure of cardinals along with a spell-out mechanism based on late
insertion (Wągiel & Caha 2020). On this analysis, though the arithmetical meaning
is more basic, it is still derived from an even more primitive concept of a
10Typically, classifiers also introduce certain restrictions on the referents of the NP modified by
the cardinal, e.g., being a round object, a flat object, a plant, a big animal etc. This aspect of their
meaning can be captured by accommodating various presuppositions concerning the nature
of the denoted individuals (Sudo 2016).
xvii
Marcin Wągiel
number scale. The quantifying meaning is then obtained by turning a number
concept into a quantificational modifier. The pattern in (36) can be then explained
by postulating that ein denotes the concept of a number scale, the suffix -s forges
the name of the numerical value and that there is yet another phonologically null
morpheme -∅ that shifts the number scale into a counting device. Crucially, not
only does such an account capture cross-linguistic variation but also it explains
why the German pattern is rare. On the other hand, no alternative explanation
of the typological facts that would build on the quantifying meaning as the primitive
component has been proposed so far.
To conclude, the patterns discussed above suggest that the arithmetical meaning
of cardinals is the basic one and that other uses can be derived from it. In the
next section, I will discuss complex numerical expressions in Slavic and suggest
how this type of evidence can provide further hints on which of the two ways of
relating number concepts and cardinalities discussed so far is on the right track.
5 Complex numerical expressions
While the mainstream semantic research focuses mostly on cardinal numerals,
there is a growing body of formal literature acknowledging that cardinals are
in fact only a subset of various numerical expressions. This fact has been well
known in Slavic descriptive traditions. Since Slavic languages have a rich morphology,
it is not surprising that one can find abundant formal complexity also in
numerals. In this section, I will briefly review recent developments in the study
of different types of derivationally and semantically complex numerical expressions.
Though the focus of the section is on Slavic data, some parallels with other
languages will be drawn.
5.1 Ordinals
The cross-linguistically most widespread type of derived numerical expressions
are ordinal numerals, i.e., forms such as English fifth and Russian pjatyj (‘fifth’).
Intuitively, ordinals represent position or rank in a sequential order. If a language
distinguishes morphologically a class of ordinals, they are always derived by an
additional affix (Stolz & Veselinova 2013).11
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the semantics of ordinals has been typically
linked to superlatives. Cross-linguistically, the two types of expressions often
11Unless an ordinal is suppletive, e.g., one ∼ first in English.
xviii
Numerals and their kin
share identical or related morphemes (Hurford 1987; Veselinova 1998)12 and have
the same syntax (Barbiers 2007). Furthermore, the acquistion of ordinals seems
to be influenced by superlative morphology (Meyer et al. 2018). Even more importantly,
ordinals, just like superlatives, give rise to an ambiguity between an
absolute and comparative interpretation (Bhatt 2006; Sharvit 2010). On the absolute
reading of (37a), John gave Mary a telescope that is older than all other
telescopes. On a comparative reading, however, he might have given her a relatively
new telescope than happens to be older than the telescopes other people
gave her, i.e., John’s gift is compared to other gifts rather that to telescopes in
general. Similarly, (37b) can mean either that Mary got a telescope that was older
than other telescopes, or that John’s telescope was the first Mary has received.
(37) a. John gave Mary the oldest telescope.
b. John gave Mary the first telescope.
However, it has been observed that ordinals, unlike superlatives, do not give
rise to so-called upstairs de dicto readings in sentences with intensional operators
such as want (Bylinina et al. 2015). For instance, (38a) can have a particular
comparative interpretation which makes it true in the scenario below. Yet, that
reading is unavailable for (38b).
(38) Scenario: There are many trains throughout the day. John wants to take
a train. Any of the trains between 3 pm and 4 pm is fine for him.
Similarly, Bill and Steve want to take a train, and they are fine as far as
the departure time is between 5 pm and 6 pm and between 7 pm and 8
pm, respectively. These people do not know anything about one another.
a. John wants to take the earliest train. true
b. John wants to take the first train. false
As a result, Bylinina et al. (2015) argue that superlatives and ordinals differ with
respect to where they are interpreted. According to that proposal, while superlatives
involve movement, ordinals are always interpreted in situ.
5.2 Collective numerals
One of the key topics discussed in the literature on plurality regards distributive
and collective interpretations of sentences including plural DPs such as (39)
12Notice that this is also the case in some Slavic languages. For instance, Polish pierw-szy and
Ukrainian per-šyj (both ‘first’) contain the comparative markers -szy and -šyj which also appear
in superlatives, e.g., naj-star-szy and naj-star-šyj (both ‘the oldest’), respectively.
xix
Marcin Wągiel
(e.g., Scha 1981; Link 1983; Landman 1989; 2000; Schwarzschild 1996). For instance,
(39b) is ambiguous between a reading on which a total of three letters have been
written, i.e., a distributive interpretation, and a reading on which only one letter
has been written, i.e., a collective interpretation. The source of the ambiguity has
often been located inside the VP (e.g., Hoeksema 1983; Link 1984; Schwarzschild
1991; see also Lasersohn 1995: Ch. 7 for an overview).
(39) a. The boys wrote a letter.
b. Three boys wrote a letter.
Interestingly, Slavic languages have special numerical expressions which force a
collective interpretation of the whole sentence. For instance, consider the Czech
sentences in (40) (Dočekal 2012; 2013).13 While (40a) patterns with (39b) in that
it is ambiguous between a distributive and a collective reading, the sentence in
(40b) rules out the distributive interpretation, and thus the sole possible reading
is that only one letter has been written.
(40) a. Tři
three
chlapci
boys
napsali
wrote
dopis.
letter
Czech
‘Three boys wrote a letter.’ ✓collective, ✓distributive
b. Trojice
three.coll
chlapců
boys.gen
napsala
wrote
dopis.
letter
‘A group of three boys wrote a letter.’ ✓collective, # distributive
Since the difference between the two sentences boils down to the alternation
between the basic cardinal numeral tři (‘three’) and the morphologically complex
derived form trojice (‘group of three’), the suffix -ice has been proposed to be a
morphological reflex of a semantic operation forcing a collective interpretation,
specifically the group-forming operator ↑ proposed by Landman (1989).14
Importantly, collective numerals cannot be used to refer to number concepts,
as witnessed in (41). This fact is surprising if the arithmetic meaning were derived
from the quantifying one, see §4.2. Despite the collective meaning component
described above, NPs involving collective numerals denote pluralities and one
would expect the same shift that is posited to turn the quantificational meaning
13In the literature, expressions such as trojice (‘group of three’) have been referred to as collective
or group numerals as well as denumeral group nouns (due to their nominal-like behavior).
14The affix -oj- appears only in morphologically complex numerical expressions derived from
the roots for 2 and 3 and is usually assumed to have a purely structural function, i.e., it marks
non-cardinal stems.
xx
Numerals and their kin
of a cardinal into the name of a number concept should be applicable also in this
case, contrary to facts.
(41) a. # Trojice
three.coll
je
is
prvočíslo.
prime.number
Czech
Intended: ‘Three is prime.’
b. # Šestice
six.coll
děleno
divided
trojicí
three.coll.ins
je
is
dvojice.
two.coll
Intended: ‘Six divided by three is two.’
Collective numerals have been identified also in other Slavic languages. In particular,
Polish trójka (‘group of three’) patterns with (40b) (Wągiel 2015) and similar
examples include Slovak trojica, BCS trojka and Russian trojka (all ‘group
of three’).15 The existence of the discussed phenomenon in Slavic is unexpected
since it is typically postulated to hold cross-linguistically that if a language has
a scopal quantifier, it is a quantifier forcing a distributive interpretation (Gil
1992).16 Hence, the Slavic data discussed above compel to revise that generalization.
In any case, a systematic theory-driven cross-linguistic research of collective
numerals has not been carried out so far.
5.3 Both
An interesting feature of many languages including Slavic is that alongside a regular
cardinal numeral corresponding to English two there is also another form
corresponding to English both. In an early GQ account, both has been analyzed
as a quantificational determiner with the same meaning as the two (Barwise &
Cooper 1981). However, it has been observed that the two expressions are not
equivalent (Ladusaw 1982). For instance, both is incompatible with collective
predicates, see (42a), and cannot appear inside partitives, see (42b). As witnessed
in (43), the same behavior is also attested in Slavic (Łazorczyk & Pancheva 2009).
(42) a. { The two / #Both } students are a happy couple.
b. One of { the two / #both } children sneezed.
15Russian shows a strong tendency to lexicalize collective numerals, e.g., trojka is also a word
for a carriage drawn by a team of three horses abreast.
16In Hebrew, there are derived expressions that at first blush resemble Slavic collective numerals,
e.g., šlišiya (‘threesome of’). However, they have been reported to differ in that they do not force
a collective interpretation (Gil 1992).
xxi
Marcin Wągiel
(43) a. # Obe
both
ženščiny
woman.gen
prišli
came
vmeste.
together
Russian
Intended: ‘Both women came together.’
b. Kto
who
iz
from
etix
these
{ dvoix /
two.gen
*oboix }
both.gen
sdelal
did
to,
this
čto
what
xotel
wanted
otec?
father
‘Which of these two did what his father wanted?’
The data presented above led to proposals postulating that both, unlike cardinals,
involves an additional distributive component (e.g., Ladusaw 1982; Landman
1989).17 Interestingly, however, there is yet another respect in which the
two differ. Specifically, both cannot be used to refer to a number concept in an
arithmetical environment, see (44).
(44) a. # Oba
both
to
that
liczba
number
parzysta.
even
Polish
Intended: ‘Both is an even number.’
b. # Dziesięć
ten
dzielone
divided
przez
by
oba
both
równa
equals
się
refl
pięć.
five
Intended: ‘Ten divided by both equals five.’
Similarly to collective numerals, the behavior of both and its Slavic equivalents
presented in (44) poses a serious challenge for approaches deriving the arithmetical
function of numerals from the allegedly basic quantifying meaning.
5.4 Taxonomic numerals
A unique property of some Slavic languages is that they have taxonomic numerals.
Likewise collective numerals, they are derived by a special suffix which
triggers a non-trivial semantic effect. Unlike cardinals, such expressions do not
quantify over object-level entities, i.e., tokens of a type, but rather over subkinds
of a particular kind corresponding to the meaning of the modified noun.For instance,
let us consider the taxonomic numeral dvojí (‘two kinds of’) in Czech
(Dočekal 2012; 2013; Grimm & Dočekal to appear). The phrase in (45a) does not
refer to two musical instruments but rather to two types of violin, e.g., a set of
classical violins and a set of electric violins. Likewise, (45b) denotes two kinds of
the beverage, e.g., white and red wine, irrespective of its amount.
17For the recent research on bona fide distributive numerals, see, e.g., Gil (2013), Cable (2014),
Wohlmuth (2019).
xxii
Numerals and their kin
(45) a. dvojí
two.tax
housle
violin
Czech
‘two kinds of violin’
b. dvojí
two.tax
víno
wine
‘two kinds of wine’
Unlike cardinals, taxonomic numerals specify the domain of quantification to
be within the realm of kinds exclusively. Therefore, the suffix -í has been proposed
to introduce a quantificational operation dedicated to counting subkinds,
specifically the ku (for ‘kind unit’) operation proposed by Krifka (1995).
Though taxonomic numerals seem to be best preserved in Czech, Polish dwojaki
and dwoisty, Bulgarian dvojak and Russian dvojakij (all ‘twofold’) are arguably
expressions of a similar type. However, there appear to be certain differences
with respect to their distribution and behavior that have not been described
sufficiently so far. Crucially, none of the taxonomic numerals can be used to refer
to an abstract number concept.
5.5 Aggregate numerals
Another intriguing type of Slavic derivationally complex numerical expressions
is sometimes referred to as aggregate numerals, e.g., forms such as Czech dvoje
(‘two collections’) (Dočekal 2012; 2013) as well as BCS dvoji (Lučić 2015). Likewise
collective numerals, they are derived by a special suffix which triggers a
non-trivial semantic effect and lack the arithmetical meaning. While cardinals
simply count atomic individuals in the denotation of the modified NP, aggregate
numerals are used to quantify over collections of entities that typically form a
particular spatial configuration. For instance, (46a) refers to two aggregates of
cards, e.g., two decks of cards. Similarly, (46b) denotes two pairs of shoes.
(46) a. dvoje
two.aggr
karty
cards
Czech
‘two sets of cards’
b. dvoje
two.aggr
boty
shoes
‘two pairs of shoes’
Aggregate numerals are not limited to Slavic. For instance, similar expressions
seem to have existed in Latin, e.g., trēs (‘three’) ∼ trīnī (‘three collections’) (Ojeda
xxiii
Marcin Wągiel
1997), and Estonian uses pluralized numerals for this purpose, e.g., kaks (‘two’)
∼ kahed (‘two collections’) (Norris 2018). However, it is the Slavic data what has
been taken as evidence for the relevance of mereotopology in natural language,
specifically the significance of topological relations holding between atomic members
of a plurality within a part-whole structure.18 In particular, the suffix -e
in phrases such as (46) is sensitive to how parts making up a whole are arranged,
and thus it has been proposed to introduce a semantic operation dedicated
to counting clusters, i.e., topologically structured spatial groupings of entities
(Grimm & Dočekal to appear).
5.6 Gender-sensitive numerals
All Slavic languages mark grammatical gender on low numerals whereas some
of them, e.g., Bulgarian, Polish and Slovak, distinguish between virile (personal
masculine) and non-virile forms also in higher numerals. (Cinque & Krapova
2007; Pancheva 2018; Wągiel to appear). However, what is probably even more
interesting is the existence of complex expressions which I will refer here to as
gender-sensitive numerals.19 Such expressions introduce non-trivial restrictions
with respect to the natural gender of individuals making up a plurality.
Let us consider Polish gender-sensitive numerals such as troje (‘three (at least
one male and at least one female)’) (Wągiel 2014; 2015). Unlike virile and nonvirile
cardinals in (47a) and (47b), respectively, they do not show grammatical
gender agreement with modified NPs. Instead, they are neuter, as demonstrated
in (47c). And yet they introduce a gender-related effect. While (47a) denotes a
plurality of either males or students whose natural gender is not known to the
speaker and (47b) refers to three females, (47a) is interpreted as designating a
mixed-gender group.
(47) a. tych
these.acc.v
trzech
two.v
studentów
students.gen.v
Polish
‘these three students (male or indeterminate)’
b. te
these.acc.nv
trzy
three.nv
studentki
students.nom.nv
‘these three female students’
18For an introduction to mereotopology, see Grimm (2012: Ch. 4), Wągiel (2018: Ch. 6).
19In the traditional Slavic linguistics such forms are typically termed ‘collective numerals’. In
order to avoid confusion with expressions discussed in §5.2, I will not use that term.
xxiv
Numerals and their kin
c. to
this.nom.n
troje
three.gndr.n
studentów
students.gen.v
‘these three students (at least one male and at least one female)’
Based on the evidence discussed above, numerals such as Polish troje have been
proposed to introduce a presupposition that a plurality of individuals referred
to by the whole phrase is heterogeneous and consists of both male and female
individuals. Though similar expressions seem to be only attested in BCS, e.g.,
dvoje (‘two (one male and one female)’), there are also other types of gendersensitive
numerals in Slavic. For instance, BCS dvojica and Russian dvoe (both
‘two (male)’) presuppose a homogeneous group consisting of male individuals
only (Kim 2009; Lučić 2015; Khrizman 2020). Interestingly, none of the gendersensitive
numerals can be used to refer to a number concept.
5.7 Indefinite numerals
Another intriguing class of numerical expressions concerns indefinite numerals
such as English several (Kayne 2007). Similar quantifiers appear in all branches
of Slavic, e.g., compare Czech několik, Russian neskol’ko, Bulgarian nyakolko and
BCS nekoliko (all ‘several’). Particularly interesting data come from Polish which
distinguishes between two different expressions of this type, specifically kilka
(‘several, a few’) and ileś (tam) (‘some, some amount’). While the former is only
compatible with count NPs and designates a cardinality between 3 and 9, the
latter also combines with mass NPs and can indicate any quantity (Wągiel 2020b).
In terms of morphosyntax and many aspects of semantics, several and its Slavic
equivalents pattern with cardinals. However, one crucial respect in which the two
differ is that indefinite numerals do not fit contexts calling for number concepts,
see (48a) and (49) (Schwarzschild 2002; Wągiel 2020b). Despite the fact that one
can easily imagine the intended meaning and paraphrase it using the existential
quantifier, as in (48b), this is not what one gets in (48a) and (49).
(48) a. # Four plus several is less than ten.
b. There is a number n such that four plus n is less than ten.
(49) # Cztery
four
plus
plus
{ kilka
several
/ ileś (tam) }
some
to
this
mniej
less
niż
than
dziesięć.
ten
Polish
Intended: ‘Four plus several/some is less than ten.’
Polish indefinite numerals have been analyzed as complex expressions with an
incorporated measure function and choice function. The difference between kilka
xxv
Marcin Wągiel
and ileś (tam) is due to a different type of set the choice function selects a number
from and a different kind of built-in measure function (Wągiel 2020b).
5.8 Multipliers
In many languages there is a heavily understudied class of numerical expressions
sometimes referred to as multipliers, e.g., English double. Though Germanic and
Romance languages have borrowed their multipliers from Latin, in Slavic they
are morphologically transparent and one can easily notice that they are derived
from numerical roots by various affixes, e.g., compare Polish podwójny, Russian
dvojnoj and Czech dvojitý (all ‘double’).
Interestingly, multipliers display non-trivial quantificational behavior. Specifically,
they do not quantify over whole entities or events, as cardinals would, but
rather over parts thereof (Wągiel 2018; 2020a). For instance, the phrase in (50a)
denotes a set of singular objects having a complex internal structure. Each of
those objects is a crown but crucially it also has two parts that could be considered
as having the property of being a crown themselves, e.g., entities such as
the ancient Egyptian Pschent or the papal tiara. Similarly, (50b) refers to a murdering
event with two victims. But this means that there were two parts of that
event each of which could be described as a murder in its own right.
(50) a. dvostruka
two.mult.f
kruna
crown.n
BCS
‘double crown’
b. dvostruko
two.mult.n
ubistvo
murder.n
‘double murder’
The behavior of multipliers has been argued to stem from the phenomenon of
subatomic quantification (Wągiel 2018). According to the proposal, natural language
is sensitive to the arrangement of parts within a singular entity. Certain expressions,
e.g., proportional partitives and multipliers, can access such subatomic
part-whole structures and quantify over parts conceptualized as contiguous objects
within a whole.
5.9 Event numerals
Yet another class of cross-linguistically frequent numerical expressions consists
of event numerals also known as multiplicatives. They include adverbial expressions
such as English twice and two times which are primarily used to quantify
xxvi
Numerals and their kin
over events but can be also employed in comparative and equative constructions.
Event numerals are attested in all Slavic languages with BCS dvaput and Czech
dvakrát (both ‘two times, twice’) being representative examples.
Intuitively, event numerals seem to be a type of a broader class of adverbs of
quantification including frequency adverbs such English often and French souvent
(‘often’) (Abeillé et al. 2004, Doetjes 2007). However, close examination reveals
interesting differences between event numerals and frequency adverbs one
of which regards degree modification (Dočekal & Wągiel 2018). For instance, the
sentence with the event numeral in (51a) is ambiguous between the quantifiedevent
reading and the quantified-degree reading. On the former interpretation
there were two events of increasing the demand and the total value of the increase
is unknown whereas on the latter interpretation there was a twofold increase
in the demand irrespective of the number of events on which it increased.
Interestingly, (51b) lacks the quantified-degree reading.
(51) a. Poptávka
demand
po
after
dotacích
subsidies
vzrostla
increased.pfv
dvakrát.
twice
Czech
‘The demand for subsidies increased (by) two times.’ ✓event, ✓deg
b. Poptávka
demand
po
after
dotacích
subsidies
rostla
increased.ipfv
často.
often
‘The demand for subsidies increased often.’ ✓event, #degree
In addition, while event numerals are perfectly fine in comparatives and equatives,
frequency adjectives are infelicitous in such constructions, as witnessed by
the contrast in (52).
(52) Petr
Petr
je
is
{ dvakrát
twice
/ #často
often
} vyšší
taller
než
than
Marie.
Marie
Czech
‘Petr is two times taller than Marie.’
Unlike all other types of numerical expressions discussed in this section, event
numerals can be used in arithmetical environments provided that they express
multiplication. However, it is puzzling that not all event numerals can do that. For
instance, Polish has two sets of event numerals but only one can be felicitously
used in a context such as (53) which suggests that the element razy (‘times’)
might be a homonymous form for a multiplicative morpheme used to quantify
over events and an expression of an arithmetical relation.
xxvii
Marcin Wągiel
(53) { Dwa
two
razy
times
/ #Dwukrotnie
twice
} trzy
three
równa
equas
się
six
sześć. Polish
‘Two times three equals six.’
Though event numerals seem key to understanding quantification in the domains
of events and degrees, it is surprising that so far they have not received nearly
as much attention as cardinals.
5.10 Frequency numerals
Finally, in many languages there are expressions I will refer to as frequency numerals,
i.e., multiplicative adjectives equivalent to English two-time. Slavic is no
exception here and Polish dwukrotny, Czech dvojnásobný and Russian dvukratnyj
(all ‘two-time’) are representative examples of the class in question.
At first sight, it seems that frequency numerals such as two-time are expressions
of the same type as frequency adjectives like occasional and frequent (Zimmermann
2003, Schäfer 2007, Gehrke & McNally 2015). Notice, however, that
while occasional can have the adverbial reading, expressions such as two-time
pattern with frequent in that they lack such an interpretation. For instance, while
(54a) means that occasionally a sailor strolled by, both (54b) and (54c) cannot be
understood that way.
(54) a. An occasional sailor strolled by. ✓adverbial
b. A frequent sailor strolled by. #adverbial
c. A two-time senator strolled by. #adverbial
Furthermore, frequency numerals fail to combine with sortal nouns and seem to
require role nouns denoting socially salient capacities such as positions with a
term and award recipients that can be acquired repetitively. That is because frequency
numerals quantify over conventionalized events of acquiring a property,
e.g., via a ceremony, compare (55a) and (55b).
(55) a. Jan
Jan
to
this
dwukrotny
two-time
{ mistrz
champion
/ #człowiek
man
}. Polish
‘Jan is a two-time champion.’
b. Jan
Jan
został
became
{ mistrzem
champion.ins
/ #człowiekiem
man.ins
} dwa
two
razy.
times
‘Jan became a champion twice.’
xxviii
Numerals and their kin
Having examined various complex numerical expressions, let us now summarize
the discussed data show us.
5.11 Summary
In this section, I have reviewed various types of numerical expressions in Slavic
and beyond. In particular, I have discussed a wide range of morphologically complex
forms and examined how they correspond to certain non-trivial semantic
effects. The reviewed dataset is far larger and more diverse than typically analyzed
in mainstream semantic theories of numerals, see §3. And yet, there is
an intuition that a general theory of numerals should cover all of the examined
cases. Therefore, I believe the relevance of the above-discussed Slavic data for
such a theory is twofold.
First, morphological transparency of the discussed forms clearly shows that
all complex numerical expressions share a common component, i.e., a numerical
root designating a certain number. That number is somehow employed in counting
but what exactly is counted may vary depending on a type of numeral, e.g.,
whole objects in the case of cardinals, parts in the case of multipliers and subkinds
in the case of taxonomic numerals. Therefore, a theory of numerals should
aim at providing a general mechanism that will allow us to capture not only the
behavior of cardinals but also other numerical expressions discussed here.
Second, despite sharing an element designating a number none of the complex
numerical expressions can be used to refer to abstract arithmetical concepts, i.e.,
the arithmetical function is never available except for basic cardinals.20 This fact
turns out to be problematic for the approaches deriving the arithmetical meaning
from the quantifying one, see §4.2. The reason is that they shift a counting device
semantics of a cardinal into a proper name of a number concept. But if so, why
cannot that shift be also applied in the case of other types of counting expressions,
e.g., a taxonomic, an aggregate or an indefinite numeral, or both? Semantically,
those expressions do not seem to be radically different from cardinals (they all
count something) to justify why shifting their meaning to a name of a number
concept is impossible. If, on the other hand, the arithmetical meaning is basic,
one expects to derive various quantificational flavors from it. Therefore, it would
not be surprising that only basic cardinals can have the arithmetical function and
other types of numerical expressions would lack it.
20And perhaps event numerals in contexts expressing multiplication.
xxix
Marcin Wągiel
Abbreviations
cl classifier
cop copula
f feminine
n neuter
ipfv imperfective
pfv perfective
gen genitive
ins instrumental
refl reflexive pronoun
top topic
aggr aggregate numeral
gndr gender-sensitive numeral
mult multiplier
nbr arithmetical numeral
tax taxonomic numeral
Acknowledgements
To be added.
References
Abeillé, Anne, Jenny Doetjes, Arie Molendijk & Henriëtte de Swart. 2004. Adverbs
and quantification. In Francis Corblin & Henriëtte de Swart (eds.), Handbook
of French Semantics, 185–209. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in
Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(1). 91–138.
Barbiers, Sjef. 2007. Indefinite numerals ‘one’ and ‘many’ and the cause of ordinal
suppletion. Lingua 117(5). 859–880.
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language.
Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2). 159–219.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2006. Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. Oxford: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Bultinck, Bert. 2005. Numerous Meanings: The Meaning of English Cardinals and
the Legacy of Paul Grice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bylinina, Lisa, Natalia Ivlieva, Alexander Podobryaev & Yasutada Sudo. 2015. An
in situ semantics for ordinals. In Thuy Bui & Deniz Özyıldız (eds.), NELS 45: Proceedings
of the Forty-Fifth Annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society,
135–145. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Bylinina, Lisa & Rick Nouwen. 2018. On ‘zero’ and semantic plurality. Glossa: A
Journal of General Linguistics 3(1).
xxx
Numerals and their kin
Bylinina, Lisa & Rick Nouwen. 2020. Numeral semantics. Language and Linguistics
Compass e12390. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12390.
Cable, Seth. 2014. Distributive numerals and distance distributivity in Tlingit (and
beyond). Language 90(3). 562–606.
Champollion, Lucas & Manfred Krifka. 2016. Mereology. In Maria Aloni & Paul
Dekker (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, 369–388. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1985. Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic
Inquiry 16(3). 417–443.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese
174(1). 99–149.
Cinque, Guglielmo & Iliyana Krapova. 2007. A note on Bulgarian numeral classifiers.
In Gabriela Alboiu, Andrei A Avram, Larisa Avram & Daniela Isac (eds.),
Pitar Moş: a Building with a View. Papers in Honour of Alexandra Cornilescu,
45–51. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Dočekal, Mojmír. 2012. Atoms, groups and kinds in Czech. Acta Linguistica Hungarica:
An International Journal of Linguistics 59(1–2). 109–126.
Dočekal, Mojmír. 2013. What do we count with numerals? Semantic analysis of
Czech group-denoting and kind-denoting NPs. In Uwe Junghanns, Dorothee
Fehrmann, Denisa Lenertová & Hagen Pitsch (eds.), Formal Description of
Slavic Languages: The Ninth Conference. Proceedings of FDSL 9, Göttingen 2011,
87–105. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Dočekal, Mojmír & Marcin Wągiel. 2018. Event and degree numerals: Evidence
from Czech. In Denisa Lenertová, Roland Meyer, Radek Šimík & Luka Szucsich
(eds.), Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2016, 77–108. Berlin: Language Science
Press.
Doetjes, Jenny. 2007. Adverbs and quantification: Degrees versus frequency. Lingua
117(4). 685–720.
Donohue, Mark. 2005. Numerals and their position in Universal Grammar. Journal
of Universal Language 6(2). 1–37.
Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 12(4). 597–674.
Frege, Gottlob. 1884. Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Breslau: Wilhelm Koebner.
Gehrke, Berit & Louise McNally. 2015. Distributional modification: The case of
frequency adjectives. Language 91(4). 837–870.
Geurts, Bart. 2006. Take ‘five’: the meaning and use of a number word. In Svetlana
Vogeleer & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Non-definiteness and Plurality, 311–329.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
xxxi
Marcin Wągiel
Gil, David. 1992. Scopal quantifiers: Some universals of lexical effability. In Meaning
and Grammar: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, 303–346. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Gil, David. 2013. Numeral classifiers. In Matthew S Dryer & Martin Haspelmath
(eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/55.
Gillon, Brendan S. 1987. The readings of plural noun phrases in English. Linguistics
and Philosophy 10(2). 199–219.
Grimm, Scott. 2012. Number and Individuation. Stanford University, California
dissertation.
Grimm, Scott & Mojmír Dočekal. to appear. Counting aggregates, groups and
kinds: Countability from the perspective of a morphologically complex language.
In Hana Filip (ed.), Counting and Measuring across Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 2007. Boxes and piles and what’s in them: Two extended projections
or one. In Annie Zaenen, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, Christopher
D. Manning & Jane Simpson (eds.), Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: A
Festschrift for Joan Bresnan, 245–252. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative Quantifiers. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
dissertation.
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hoeksema, Jack. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. In Alice G.B ter Meulen (ed.),
Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics, 63–83. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hurford, James R. 1987. Language and Number: The Emergence of a Cognitive System.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Hurford, James R. 1998. The interaction between numerals and nouns. In Frans
Plank (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, 561–620. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hurford, James R. 2001. Languages treat 1-4 specially. Mind & Language 16(1). 69–
75.
Ionin, Tania & Ora Matushansky. 2006. The composition of complex cardinals.
Journal of Semantics 23(4). 315–360.
Ionin, Tania & Ora Matushansky. 2018. Cardinals: The Syntax and Semantics of
Cardinal-Containing Expressions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2007. Several, few and many. Lingua 117(5). 832–858.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2013. A scalar semantics for scalar readings of number
words. In Ivano Caponigro & Carlo Cecchetto (eds.), From Grammar to Mean-
xxxii
Numerals and their kin
ing: The Spontaneous Logicality of Language, 172–200. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2015. A ‘de-Fregean’ semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics)
for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics & Pragmatics 8. 1–
44.
Kennedy, Christopher & Jason Stanley. 2009. On ‘average’. Mind 118(471). 583–
646.
Khrizman, Keren. 2020. Cardinal/collective alternation in Russian numerals. In
Teodora Radeva-Bork & Peter Kosta (eds.), Current Developments in Slavic Linguistics:
Twenty Years After, 325–338. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Kim, Hyoung Sup. 2009. The Structure and Use of Collective Numeral Phrases in
Slavic: Russian, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, and Polish. The University of Texas
dissertation.
Klockmann, Heidi. 2012. Polish numerals and quantifiers: A syntactic analysis of
subject-verb agreement mismatches. Utrecht University MA thesis.
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification
in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & Peter
von Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, 75–115. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of Chinese and
English. In Gregory N Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), The Generic
Book, 398–411. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In Ken
Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View,
257–291. Oxford: Elsevier.
Ladusaw, William. 1982. Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction.
In Daniel Flickinger, Marlys Macken & Nancy Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings
of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 1, 231–242. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University.
Landman, Fred. 1989. Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 559–605.
Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Landman, Fred. 2003. Predicate-argument mismatches and the adjectival theory
of indefinites. In From NP to DP: Volume 1: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun
Phrases, 211–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Landman, Fred. 2004. Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Oxford: Blackwell.
xxxiii
Marcin Wągiel
Landman, Fred. 2016. Iceberg semantics for count nouns and mass nouns: Classifiers,
measures and portions. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic
and Communication 11(1). 1–48.
Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Boston: Kluwer.
Łazorczyk, Agnieszka & Roumyana Pancheva. 2009. From ‘two’ to ‘both’: Historical
changes in the syntax and meaning of ‘oba’ in Slavic. In Ronald P. Leow,
Héctor Campos & Donna Lardiere (eds.), Little Words: Their History, Phonology,
Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Acquisition, 9–19. Washington: Georgetown
University Press.
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: A lattice–
theoretical approach. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von
Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, 302–323. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Link, Godehard. 1984. Hydras: On the logic of relative constructions with multiple
heads. In Fred Landman & Frank Veltman (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics,
245–257. Dordrecht: Foris.
Lučić, Radovan. 2015. Observations on collective numerals in standard Croatian.
Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 3–31.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matushansky, Ora & Tania Ionin. this volume. Measurement and cardinals in
Slavic. In Berit Gehrke & Radek Šimík (eds.), Hanbook of slavic semantics.
Berlin: Language Science Press.
Matushansky, Ora & Joost Zwarts. 2017. Making space for measures. In Andrew
Lamont & Katerina Tetzloff (eds.), NELS 47: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh
Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 261–274.
Meyer, Caitlin, Sjef Barbiers & Fred Weerman. 2018. Ordinals are not as easy as
‘one’, ‘two’, ‘three’: The acquisition of cardinals and ordinals in Dutch. Language
Acquisition 25(4). 392–417.
Morzycki, Marcin. 2016. Modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, Mark. 2018. The morphosyntax of number in Estonian numeral-noun constructions.
Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 3(1(45)). 1–13.
Nouwen, Rick. 2010. Two kinds of modified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics
3. 1–41.
Ojeda, Almerindo E. 1997. A semantics for the counting numerals of Latin. Journal
of Semantics 14(2). 143–171.
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2018. How many flowers? So many colors! Number marking
in cardinality exclamatives in Bulgarian. In Steven L Franks, Vrinda Chidambaram,
Brian D Joseph & Iliyana Krapova (eds.), Katerino Mome: Studies
xxxiv
Numerals and their kin
in Bulgarian Morphosyntax in Honor of Catherine Rudin, 197–234. Bloomington,
IN: Slavica Publishers.
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles.
In Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse
Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 115–143.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Partee, Barbara H & Vladimir Borschev. 2012. Sortal, relational, and functional
interpretations of nouns and Russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics
29(4). 445–486.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and Categories. MIT dissertation.
Rothstein, Susan. 2010. Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics
27(3). 343–397.
Rothstein, Susan. 2011. Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. The
Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6. 1–42.
Rothstein, Susan. 2017. Semantics for Counting and Measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. DOI:10.1017/9780511734830
Rutkowski, Paweł. 2002. The syntax of quantifier phrases and the inherent vs.
structural case distinction. Linguistic Research 7(1). 43–74.
Scha, Remko. 1981. Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In
Jeroen A.G Groenendijk, Theo M.V Janssen & Martin B.J Stokhof (eds.), Formal
Methods in the Study of Language, 483–512. Amsterdam: Mathematisch
Centrum.
Schäfer, Roland. 2007. On frequency adjectives. In Estela Puig-Waldmüller (ed.),
Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 555–567. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu
Fabra.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1991. On the Meaning of Definitive Plural Noun Phrases. University
of Massachusetts dissertation.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002. The grammar of measurement. In Brendan Jackson
(ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 12, 225–245. Ithaca, NY:
CLC Publications.
Scontras, Gregory. 2013. A unified semantics for number marking, numerals, andnominal
structure. In Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer & Grégoire Winterstein
(eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, 545–562. Paris: ENS. https:
//semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/.
Scontras, Gregory. 2014. The Semantics of Measurement. Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA dissertation.
xxxv
Marcin Wągiel
Sharvit, Yael. 2010. Infinitival superlatives: English vs. Modern Hebrew. Brill’s
Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 2(1). 213–247.
Stolz, Thomas & Ljuba N Veselinova. 2013. Ordinal numerals. In Matthew S Dryer
& Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.
info/chapter/53.
Sudo, Yasutada. 2016. The semantic role of classifiers in Japanese. Baltic International
Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 11(1). 1–15.
Veselinova, Ljuba. 1998. Suppletion in the derivation of ordinal numerals: A case
study. In Benjamin Bruening (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Student Conference in
Linguistics, 429–447. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Wągiel, Marcin. to appear. Grammatical gender meets classifier semantics: Evidence
from Slavic numerals. In Vera Gribanova (ed.), Formal Approaches to
Slavic Linguistics 27. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Wągiel, Marcin. 2014. Boys, girls, and scissors: A semantic analysis of Polish NPs
headed by the numeral ‘dwoje’. In Ludmila Veselovská & Markéta Janebová
(eds.), Nominal Structures: All in Complex DPs, 69–84. Olomouc: Palacký Uni-
versity.
Wągiel, Marcin. 2015. Sums, groups, genders, and Polish numerals. In Gerhild
Zybatow, Petr Biskup, Marcel Guhl, Claudia Hurtig, Olav Mueller-Reichau &
Maria Yastrebova (eds.), Slavic Grammar from a Formal Perspective. The 10th
Anniversary FDSL Conference, Leipzig 2013, 495–513. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang.
Wągiel, Marcin. 2018. Subatomic Quantification. Masaryk University in Brno dis-
sertation.
Wągiel, Marcin. 2020a. Entities, events, and their parts: The semantics of multipliers
in Slavic. In Teodora Radeva-Bork & Peter Kosta (eds.), Current Developments
in Slavic Linguistics: Twenty Years After, 105–130. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Wągiel, Marcin. 2020b. Several quantifiers are different than others: Polish indefinite
numerals. In Lanko Marušič, Rok Žaucer & Petra Mišmaš (eds.), Advances
in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2017, 323–353. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Wągiel, Marcin & Pavel Caha. 2020. Universal semantic features and the typology
of cardinal numerals. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 19. 199–229.
DOI:10.5565/rev/catjl.296
Wohlmuth, Kata. 2019. Atomicity and Distributive Reference. Universitat Pompeu
Fabra dissertation.
Zabbal, Youri. 2005. The syntax of numeral expressions. Unpublished manuscript.
Available online on LingBuzz.
xxxvi
Numerals and their kin
Zimmermann, Malte. 2003. Pluractionality and complex quantifier formation.
Natural Language Semantics 11(3). 249–287.
xxxvii