423
423
19
QUANTIFICATION
Theoretical perspectives
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
19.1  Introduction
The study of quantificational expressions is one of the central domains in the field of
natural language semantics. Probably every language has means of expressing quantification,
but quantifiers in natural languages are not straightforwardly parallel to logical
quantifiers. Over the past 30 years a lot of research has been done to exactly describe and
explain the properties of quantifiers in diverse languages (see Keenan (2006); Matthewson
(2008); Keenan & Paperno (2012); and Paperno & Keenan (2017) for a cross-​linguistic
perspective). However, quantification in sign languages is severely understudied. This
chapter offers an overview of existing research on this topic, and discusses some ideas
for future research. Before proceeding to the discussion of sign languages, the necessary
theoretical background is introduced in this section.
The most studied type of quantification concerns the so-​called D-​quantifiers, that is,
adnominal determiners with quantificational functions, such as English all, each, most,
some, etc. A D-​quantifier together with a noun forms a quantifier noun phrase, such as
each boy in Each boy entered. The meaning of the quantifier noun phrase (generalized
quantifiers) is thus a function which maps properties (e.g., entered) to truth values, and
thus the meaning of a quantifier is a function from properties to generalized quantifiers.
Keenan (2006) argues that the meaning of quantifiers is better characterized in set theoretical
terms, for instance “ALL (A) (B) is true iff A Í B”. In this representation, it also
becomes clear that the structure of a quantificational expression has three main parts: the
operator –​the quantifier itself (ALL) –​, the restrictor (A), and the nuclear scope (B).
There are different semantic types of quantifiers. Some quantifiers (some, many,
two) are existential: they can be used in existential contexts, such as There are two cats
in the garden. An important subtype of existential quantifiers is cardinal quantifiers,
which express cardinality, including numerals. Other quantifiers (all, each) are universal,
and they cannot be used in such contexts.1
Often a distinction is made between
collective (all) and distributive (each) universal quantifiers. Finally, there are also proportional
quantifiers, such as most and half. In addition, complex quantifiers can be
built through combination of multiple quantifiers: Some but not more than half of the
students came.
424
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
424
In addition to D-​quantifiers, all natural languages seem to have A-​quantifiers, that is,
quantifiers which are not bound to a particular argument, but which are instead combined
with predicates and quantify over events. For instance, John always walks to work means
that the set of events in which John goes to work is a subset of events in which John walks.
Such quantifiers can also be existential (often, never), universal (always), or proportional
(mostly, usually), although it is somewhat difficult to differentiate between existential and
proportional A-​quantifiers. A-​quantifiers can be adverbial, but they can also be verbal
affixes. However, a verbal affix can also quantify over arguments (Evans 1995), so the
boundary between D-​and A-​quantifiers is not always straightforward; therefore, we discuss
lexical quantifiers (both D-​and A-​) separately from morphological modifiers with
quantificational meaning.
One of the most important properties of quantifiers in natural languages is that
when two or more quantifiers are combined in one sentence, scope ambiguities can arise.
For instance, Some teacher graded every paper can either mean that there is one specific
teacher who has graded all papers (some scopes over every), or that for every paper, there
is a teacher who graded it (every scopes over some). A scope ambiguity can also arise
between a D-​and an A-​quantifier, as in Two boys sang three times.
Keenan & Paperno (2012) discussed the results of a typological survey of classifiers in
18 natural languages, and came up with a list of generalizations.2
For instance, they found
that all these languages have both D-​and A-​existential quantifiers, and all also have both
D-​and A-​universal quantifiers. All languages in their sample also distinguish distributive
and collective universal quantifiers. Proportional D-​and A-​quantifiers have been found
in all languages as well. Finally, all languages showed some scope ambiguities.
There is no principled reason to expect that sign languages would diverge from the
generalizations formulated above. Thus, we also expect to find both D-​and A-​quantifiers
of different semantic types, as well as scope ambiguities. However, we also expect to find
some effects of the visual modality, such as iconicity, or use of space, that have been shown
to fundamentally affect both the syntactic and the semantic domains of sign languages
(Sandler & Lillo-​Martin (2006); Meier (2012); see also Schlenker (2018) and Schlenker,
Chapter 23 for a discussion of modality effects on semantics specifically). Based on the
previous research on quantification in sign languages, we further discuss the following
issues: lexical quantifiers (Section 19.2), quantificational morphology (Section 19.3), and
structural aspects of quantification (Section 19.4). Throughout the chapter we point out
to possible modality effects, but we also specifically address them in the last subsection.
19.2  Lexical quantifiers
To clarify the terminology, in this section we discuss quantifiers which are lexical, that
is, they are separate signs with quantificational meanings. In Section 19.3 we discuss
morphological modification which can apply to verbs (but not only verbs) to express
quantificational meanings.
19.2.1  D-​quantification
It comes as no surprise that sign languages have lexical D-​quantifiers. At least one type
of quantifiers is documented for most sign languages, namely numerals, which are usually
reported in dictionaries. There is considerable research on numerals in both urban
and rural sign languages (see Zeshan et  al. (2013) and references therein). However,
425
Quantification
425
such research is primarily focused on phonology and morphology of numerals, and on
the questions of numeral bases and strategies of constructing larger numerals, while
questions such as possible scope ambiguities are not discussed.
Although it is not a reliable research tool, a quick search of the website www.
spreadthesign.com (a multilingual sign language dictionary containing signs from 41
sign languages, as of June 2020) shows that D-​quantifiers of all three major types (universal,
existential, and proportional) are well represented. Twenty-​eight languages have
an equivalent for the meaning all, 29 languages have a sign for each, 29 languages have an
equivalent for some, and 31 have a sign for majority.3
Some papers specifically discuss quantifiers in sign languages. For instance, Petronio
(1995) discussed primarily verbal quantification in American Sign Language (ASL) (see
Section 19.3), but her examples also include existential quantifiers, such as TWO and MANY.
Partee (1995) also discusses a universal quantifier ALL in ASL. A more recent and comprehensive
discussion of quantifiers in ASL can be found in Abner & Wilbur (2017), who
mention existential quantifiers SOME, SOMEONE, FEW, MANY, and NO, universal quantifiers
#ALL (a lexicalized fingerspelling sequence) and EACH, and proportional quantifiers MOST
and HALF, among others. For Catalan Sign Language (LSC), Quer (2012) found universal
(ALL), existential (SOME), and proportional (MAJORITY) D-​quantifiers.4
Kimmelman (2017) described quantifiers in Russian Sign Language (RSL) based on
the questionnaire from Keenan & Paperno (2012). He found that all types of lexical D-​
quantifiers are well represented in RSL. For instance, RSL has existential quantifiers,
such as numerals (ONE (1), TWO, etc.), and others: SOME, MANY, NOBODY, NOTHING. It also
has both collective (ALL) and distributive (EVERY) universal quantifiers (2). Finally, it has
proportional quantifiers, such as HALF (3).
(1)  INDEX1 BUY ORANGE ONE
‘I bought one orange.’ (RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 811)
(2)  a. ALL BOY LATE
‘All boys were late.’   (RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 826)
b. EVERY QUESTION
‘Every question.’   (RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 818)
(3) GIRL HALF SICK
‘Half of the girls were sick.’ (RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 826)
Interestingly, as in many spoken languages, existential quantifiers can be used in existential
constructions, while universal quantifiers cannot: consider example (4), where an
existential quantifier MANY but not a universal quantifier ALL can be used.
     re
(4) ROOMa INDEXa EXISTa MANY/​(*ALL) BOY
‘There are many boys in the room.’ (RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 821)
In RSL, as in many spoken languages, some complex quantifiers can be built. For
instance, numerals can be modified with APPROXIMATELY and EXACTLY (5). In addition,
juxtaposition of numerals is also used to express approximate quantity (6).
426
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
426
(5)  NEW YEAR CHAMPAGNE PEOPLE DRINK APPROXIMATELY 60 PERCENT
‘Approximately 60% of people drink champagne at New Year.’
                (RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 814)
(6) WALL PICTURE HANG TWO THREE MAXIMUM FOUR
‘There are two or three pictures on the wall, at most four.’
                (RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 815)
Keenan & Paperno (2012) also observed that, in spoken languages, A-​quantifiers are
sometimes derived from D-​quantifiers, but the opposite pattern is very rare. Kimmelman
(2017) confirmed this for RSL: some A-​quantifiers, such as ONE-​TIME ‘once’ seem to be
morphologically derived from numeral D-​quantifiers, but there are no examples of D-​
quantifiers derived from A-​quantifiers.
19.2.2  A-​quantification
In opposition to D-​quantification, Bach et al. (1995) group other ways of encoding quantification
under the label A-​quantification, which includes adverbs, auxiliaries, affixes,
and argument-​structure adjusters. They introduce quantification “in a more constructional
way” (Partee 1995: 544). Research on these strategies of expressing quantification
is limited for sign languages. In this section, adverbial quantifiers are addressed, including
those that express generic quantification. For quantification over events yielding different
aspectual meanings, see Malaia & Milković, Chapter 9.
The idea behind A-​quantification stems from the analysis of indefinites by Kamp (1981)
and Heim (1982), according to which indefinite expressions are non-​quantificational, and
they just introduce a variable with descriptive content that must be unselectively bound
by a quantifier. This quantifier can be the existential closure introduced at discourse
level, but also an overt quantifier. An important piece of evidence to support this view
is provided by sentences like (7a) and (7c): the sentences with indefinite subjects can be
faithfully paraphrased as in (7b) and (7d), with D-​quantifier subjects. The quantificational
force has been shown to come from adverbials like always and often, which are called
quantificational adverbs or Q-​adverbs, since they are able to unselectively bind open
variables in their scope (it has to be assumed that they take sentential scope, which is
unproblematic for this kind of quantifiers). Next to Q-​adverbs with universal and proportional
quantificational force, there are Q-​adverbs with existential force like sometimes,
twice, or never (7e, f).
(7)  a.  A dog always makes good company.
b. All dogs make good company.
c. A cat often stays home.
d. Most cats stay home.
e. A cat never likes bathing.
f. No cat likes bathing.
Unsurprisingly, sign languages also feature this type of quantificational adverbs, as in the
RSL example in (8) or the ASL example in (9) (see also Abner & Wilbur (2017: 37–​40,
44–​45)).
427
Quantification
427
        re
(8) IX1 WORK WALK ALWAYS1 ON-​FOOT
‘I always go to work on foot.’ (RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 813)
(9) JOHN ALWAYS LOSE PAPER
‘John always loses his papers.’ (ASL, Braze 2004: 38)
Although the interaction with indefinite expressions has not been extensively addressed,
examples are found in the literature. For instance, in LSC the clausal negator NOTHING25
has been shown to be able to bind the empty variable slots in the right context, as
in (10).
	      hs
(10)  a.  BRING NOTHING2
‘Nobody brought anything.’
	   hs	     hs
b. YESTERDAY NIGHT COME NOTHING2
‘Noone came last night.’ (LSC, Quer 2012: 85)
A case for which unselective quantificational binding has been described are generic and
characterizing/​habitual statements (Krifka et al. 1995). Quer (2012) shows that in LSC,
generic statements can be overtly marked with the sign éS (‘it is’) in clause-​final position,
as illustrated in (11). It is taken to lexicalize the generic operator GEN. While specific or
definite DPs are accompanied by a pointing, arguments interpreted generically are not, as
the subject in (11). As an indefinite description, the variable it introduces is unselectively
bound by the generic operator.
  re
(11) LION PREDATE+++ éS
‘The lion is a predator.’ (LSC, Quer 2012: 86)
The same phenomenon can be observed with the covert generic or habitual operator, as
illustrated in (12) and (13) for LSC. Example (12) is a prototypical case of a donkey sentence,
where the subject and object descriptions in the conditional antecedent are bare
and not localized. Example (13) is an example of a characterizing or habitual predication,
again with an indefinite subject. In both cases, the bare nouns are unselectively
bound by the generic or habitual operator.
               re
(12)  [IF PEASANT HORSE THERE-​BE] ALWAYS TAKE-​CARE
‘If a farmer has a horse, he always takes care of it.’ (LSC, Quer 2012: 85)
           re
(13)  [FRIEND PERSON COME] IX1 3INVITE1
‘When a friend came, I would treat him/​her.’/​
‘When a friend comes, I treat him/​her.’ (LSC, Quer 2012: 86)
428
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
428
Barberà & Quer (2015) note that in a generic statement like (14), the subject bare noun
is in principle ambiguous between a bound reading (14a) and a specific one (14b): while
in the former case, the subject variable is unselectively bound in the restrictor of GEN,
in the latter one, the indefinite variable is existentially closed in the nuclear scope of the
generic operator (see Section 19.4.1 for details).
(14) PARROT SPEAK éS
a.  ‘A parrot speaks.’
b.  ‘A certain parrot typically speaks.’ (LSC, Barberà & Quer 2015)
19.3  Quantificational morphology
Klima & Bellugi (1979) demonstrated that ASL verbs can undergo a large number of
modifications, some of which express aspect, and others appear to quantify over events or
the arguments of the verb. So, for instance, they described the following morphemes: [multiple],
expressing actions to many and realized as a simple arc-​shaped movement, and
[exhaustive], encoding distributed action to each individual in a group and realized as an
arc-​shaped movement with reduplication along the arc.
Petronio (1995) discussed these morphological markers from the quantificational perspective.
She showed that ASL uses bare noun phrases in combination with morphological
modification of the verbs. Compare (15a) to (15b): in both sentences, the noun
phrase is bare, but in the first case, it is interpreted as singular, while in the second case, it
is interpreted as plural and quantified over. Quer (2012) showed that the same is true for
LSC, where the [multiple] morpheme is used as a collective universal quantifier and the
[exhaustive] morpheme as a distributive one (16).6
    re
(15)  a.  DOCTORa MONEY ANN GIVEa
‘Ann gave money to the doctor.’ (ASL, adapted from Petronio 1995: 610)
       re
b. STUDENTa BOOK ANN GIVEa-​exhaustive
‘Ann gave a book to each student.’ (ASL, adapted from Petronio 1995: 611)
(16) a. PERSONpl STUDENT INDEX^THREE INDEX1 1ASK3-​multiple
‘I asked the three students.’   (LSC, adapted from Quer 2012: 89)
b. PERSONpl STUDENT INDEX^THREE INDEX1 1ASK3-​exhaustive
‘I asked each of the three students.’   (LSC, adapted from Quer 2012: 89)
Interestingly, the same morphological markers can attach to other elements in the
sentence, not just to verbs, as Quer (2012) showed for LSC. Consider (17), where
the same marker attaches to the verb ASK, to the numeral ONE, and to the possessive
marker POSS.
                          re
(17) STUDENT ONE-​exhaustive TEACHER POSS-​exhaustive ASK-​exhaustive
‘Each student asked his/​her teacher.’ (LSC, adapted from Quer 2012: 90)
429
Quantification
429
Kimmelman (2015a, 2015b, 2017) demonstrated that this is also true for RSL. In this
language, the distributive morpheme can attach to verbs, nouns, numerals, pronouns, and
even to the lexical quantifier EVERY, as (18) shows. Thus, it is very difficult to characterize
this marking as belonging to either A-​or D-​quantifiers, given its wide compatibility.
(18) EVERY-​exhaustive MAN BUY BEER-​exhaustive
‘Every man bought a beer.’ (RSL, Kimmelman 2015a)
Importantly, both in RSL and LSC, the morpheme can attach to both the distributed
share (what is being distributed –​the beers in (18)) and the distributive key (what is being
distributed over –​the set of men in (18)). Distributive and collective morphemes are not
unattested in spoken languages; for instance, in Mayali quantification over arguments is
often expressed through verbal morphemes (Evans 1995). However, it seems much less
common (if attested) that the same morpheme would attach to different constituents
in the sentence, and to both the distributive key and the distributed share (but see
Champollion (2015) for a discussion of some cases in English, German, and Korean,
where distributivity is also expressed in multiple places in a sentence; also see Kuhn
(2017) for a formal analysis of dependent indefinites in ASL, and Kuhn (2019) for a more
general discussion of the phenomenon).
In addition to [multiple] and [exhaustive], there are other similar markers of plurality.
For instance, Kuhn & Aristodemo (2017) show that in French Sign Language (LSF), there
are at least two different markers of verbal plurality, which is also known as pluractionality:
/​rep/​, which is a full repetition of the verb, and /​alt/​, which is an alternating repetition with
two hands. Interestingly, these markers have different semantics. /​rep/​is used to express distribution
of events over time (19a), while /​alt/​is used to express distribution of events over
participants (arguments), or over both participants and time, but never over time only (19b,c).
(19)  a.  MY FRIENDS CL-​area FORGOT-​rep BRING CAMERA
‘My friends kept on forgetting to bring a camera.’
OK: several times; each time, all forgot
   * : a single time; all forgot /​several times; each time, a different one forgot
b. GROUP PEOPLE BOOK GIVE1-​alt
‘A group of people gave me books.’
c. * OFTEN ONE PERSON FORGET-​alt ONE WORD
Intended meaning: often one person forgets one word.
                  (LSF, Kuhn & Aristodemo 2017: 10–​11)
Quer (2019) confirms the existence of the same markers in LSC. Unlike LSF, however,
LSC seems to be able to accommodate the interpretation of /​alt/​occurring with singular
arguments. In the grammatical LSC example corresponding to (19c), the accommodation
can take place through variation in the spatial dimension (next to the temporal one), as
illustrated in (20).
(20) JUAN PASSWORD FORGET-​alt
‘Juan forgot the password (in different places).’ (LSC, Quer 2019: 13)
It thus seems that /​alt/​in LSC is more flexible with respect to the parameters against
which it can be interpreted. An additional pluractional marker /​rep-​arc/​is also reported
430
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
430
in LSC. Combined with a motion verb, it yields a reading of plurality of locations, with
a secondary temporal reading of plurality of times. This form is the one that has been
characterized in the literature as [distributive/​exhaustive], but Quer (2019) shows that in
LSC, it does not impose an exhaustive reading of the reduplicative morphology, as the
felicitous continuation in (21) shows. The question remains whether the exhaustive reading
attested sometimes with these forms derives from pure contextual conditions or not.
(21)  SUPERVISOR SCHOOL GO-​rep-​arc, OTHER/​SOME NOT
‘The supervisor went to some schools, to (some) others he didn’t.’
            (LSC, Quer 2019: 14)
A large variety of verbal modifiers that express different types of distributive semantics has
been found in RSL by Filimonova (2012). In addition to the abovementioned [exhaustive]
morpheme, RSL also uses a two-​handed alternating repetition [alt] (similar to LSF), but
also a combination of two-​handedness with either an arc-​shaped movement [2-​multiple],7
whereby both hands move along a simple arc without reduplication, or a reduplicated
arc-​shaped movement [2-​exhaustive]. Filimonova claimed that two-​handed alternating
repetition is often used to express uncontrolled processes (22a), while the [2-​multiple] and
[2-​exhaustive] morphemes are used in situations when the subject is plural, and the object is
distributed over (22b). It might be the case that [2-​multiple] and [2-​exhaustive] are actually
compositional combinations of the [2 hands] morpheme expressing plurality of the subject,
and [multiple] or [exhaustive] expressing object plurality or distribution over the object.
(22)  a.  SHEEP GROUP ONE WEEK DIE-​alt ALL DESTROY
‘All our sheep died in a week.’    (RSL, adapted from Filimonova 2012: 86)
b. CHILDREN INDEXpl ATTENTIVE LOOK-​2-​multiple
[A teacher talking to children:] ‘Children, you have to check [your works]
carefully.’
            (RSL, adapted from Filimonova 2012: 89)
Given the observed cross-​linguistic variation, it is clear that much more research is needed
to pin down the (quantificational) properties of (verbal) modification in sign languages,
and a lot of further interesting discoveries can be made in this domain of inquiry.
Finally, the discussion above concerned quantificational morphology of lexical
verbs (plain and agreeing; see Quer, Chapter 5 for details); however, whole-​entity classifier
predicates can also express quantification of the arguments. For instance, in ASL,
using a semantic classifier with the -​handshape (glossed as CL1) means a singular entity
moving (23a), while using a classifier with two extended fingers means that two entities
are moving, and using a two-​handed classifier predicate with four fingers extended on
each hand (glossed as CL44) can express the meaning of an undetermined plurality of
entities (e.g., humans) moving (23b) (Petronio 1995; also see Filimonova (2012) for RSL).
    top
(23) a. STOREa, MAN CL1: go-​toa
‘The man went to the store.’
   top
b. STOREa, MAN CL44: go-​toa
‘The men went to the store.’ (ASL, adapted from Petronio 1995: 614)
431
Quantification
431
In addition to using the handshape, the movement and location in whole-​entity classifier
predicates can be used for quantification (Petronio 1995, among others). The predicate can
be reduplicated in various points of space to express plurality and location of the argument,
as in (24) from DGS, where the whole-​entity predicate is repeated in three different locations.
(24) TABLE BOOK CLB(flat object): be-​at-​repa,b,c
‘Books are lying next to each other on the table.’
                (DGS, adapted from Steinbach 2012: 125)
As with lexical verbs, classifier predicates with quantificational morphology can combine
with bare noun phrases not specified for number, such that quantification is expressed
only in the predicate (24).
19.4  Structural aspects of quantification
Together with lexical and morphological encoding of quantificational meanings, syntactic
structure plays a crucial role in the way quantificational readings are conveyed.
In this section, tripartite structures, scopal interactions, and spatial encoding of certain
aspects of quantification are addressed.
19.4.1  Tripartite structures of quantification
In the study of natural language quantification, a proposal has been made to try to
ascertain how information-​structural notions like topic and focus interact with the
expression of quantificational structures (Partee 1992, 1995; Bach et al. 1995). Their
focus-​sensitivity is central to the approach. The main hypothesis is that the topic/​focus
articulation determines the projection of quantificational tripartite structures, namely
the semantic structuring of the quantification into Operator-​Restrictor-​Nuclear scope
(see Section 19.1). Figure  19.1 illustrates this view in a schematic way, by featuring
“a number of hypothesized syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic structures that can be
argued to be correlated with each other and with the basic tripartite scheme” (Partee
1995: 545–​546).
Figure 19.1  Tripartite structures generalized (Partee 1992: 163)
432
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
432
On the basis of LSC data, Quer (2012) proposes that sign languages might tend to
encode the tripartition of quantificational structures overtly. The tendency might be
related to the fact that in general, they encode information-​structural notions overtly
through syntax and non-​manual markers (see Kimmelman & Pfau, Chapter 26). This
can be readily observed in generic or habitual/​characterizing sentences such as (12)–​(13)
above, repeated here as (25)–​(26) for convenience. The overt Q-​adverb ALWAYS in (25) and
the covert generic or habitual operator in (26) are standardly understood to take scope
over the whole sentence; the dependent clause in the left periphery is marked with brow
raise, as topics are, and it realizes the restrictor of the operator, which unselectively binds
the free variables in it, giving rise to quantificational variability effects. The main clause
predication constitutes the nuclear scope of the quantificational structure.
               re
(25) [IF PEASANT HORSE THERE-​BE] ALWAYS TAKE-​CARE
‘If a farmer has a horse, he always takes care of it.’ (LSC, Quer 2012: 85)
                 re
(26) [FRIEND PERSON COME] IX1 3INVITE1
‘When a friend came, I would treat him/​her.’ /​
‘When a friend comes, I treat him/​her.’   (LSC, Quer 2012: 86)
This tendency is shown to surface in D-​quantification, whereby the restrictor of the
quantifier often appears as a topic in the left periphery, detached from the quantifier and
marked by brow raise, as in the LSC case in (27).
    re
(27) STUDENTS MAJORITY EXAM PASS
‘Most students passed the exam.’       (LSC, Quer 2012: 88)
A related but different case might be the split that is often found in complex wh-​structures,
where the wh-​quantifier occurs at the right edge of the clause, and its restrictor appears
either as a left-​edge topic marked with brow raise or in situ. This split is exemplified for
LSC in (28), where the restrictor of the wh-​phrase appears in situ and the wh-​element
has moved to the right (furrowed eyebrows (fe) are the non-​manual marker for content
interrogatives in LSC; see Kelepir, Chapter 11).
	       fe
(28) THIS MORNING STUDENT  COME WHO
‘Which students came this morning?’ (LSC, Quer 2012: 87)
The tendency has been documented as well for quantified sentences in ASL, where the
nominal restrictor of a D-​quantifier of different types (universal, existential, numeral)
appears either in situ or left-​detached and marked with brow raise, as in (29a). If the
restriction appears in situ, the quantifier cannot be left-​detached (29b).
   re
(29)  a.  BOOK I WANT ALL/​SOME/​THREE
‘I want all/​some/​three books.’
	
433
Quantification
433
       re
b. * ALL/​SOME/​THREE I WANT BOOK
(ASL, adapted from Boster 1996, Partee 1995, and Petronio 1995)
Wilbur & Patschke (1999), in trying to explain structures with brow raise marking in
ASL, proposed that the non-​manually marked constituent is the restriction of a [-​wh]
operator that occupies the A’-​Specifier position of that operator. In this way, they unify
the use of topics, focus, relative clauses, conditionals, yes/​no questions, and wh-​clefts in
ASL (see also Abner & Wilbur 2017: 51–​52).
However, the overt expression of tripartite quantificational structures might be just
a tendency rather than a hard-​wired grammar rule in these sign languages. Focusing on
RSL, Kimmelman (2015b) establishes that the tripartite structure, albeit attested as in
(30a,b), where BOY provides the restrictor of the quantifier all and LATE is the main predicate
in the nuclear scope, is not always overtly marked, as in (30c).
  re
(30)  a.  BOY ALL LATE
‘All boys were late.’
   re
b. BOY LATE ALL
c. ALL BOY LATE
‘All boys were late.’   (RSL, Kimmelman 2015b: 129)
He argues that the topicalized restrictor BOY in (30a,b) does not surface for free, and
that it induces a partitive reading of the quantified expression: (30a,b) should rather be
translated as ‘All of the boys were late’.
19.4.2  Scopal interactions
It is well-​known that when two or more quantified expressions co-​occur in the same sentence,
they can give rise to scope ambiguities. The possibilities will be determined by the
capacity of the quantified expression to take larger scope than the position it occupies
in syntax or not, which is determined lexically but also structurally. Thus, an English
sentence like (31) can in principle yield the two readings reported in (31a) and (31b): in
the (31a) reading, the subject two volunteers has scope over the object every candidate,
reflecting the surface hierarchical relationship between the two constituents. However, in
the (31b) reading, the object phrase takes scope over the subject.
(31) Two volunteers have campaigned for every candidate.
a. ‘There are two volunteers such that they have campaigned for all candidates.’
b. ‘For every candidate, there are two possibly different volunteers that have
campaigned for him or her.’
Given the different modality of sign languages, the question can be asked whether
factors like use of space or some other modality-​specific factors block such possible
ambiguities in quantificational readings. Although there is little research on this topic, it
has been shown that ambiguous quantificational readings can arise among clause-​mate
434
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
434
quantifier expressions in a sign language like LSC (Quer & Steinbach 2015: 153), as
shown in (32).
	            re
(32) STUDENT NEW GROUPdist PROFESSOR TWO GUIDE
a.  ‘There are two professors such that each has shown all the new groups of
students around.’
b. ‘For every new group of students, there are two (possibly) different professors
that have shown them around.’
(LSC, adapted from Quer & Steinbach 2015: 153)
Similar scope ambiguities have been found for RSL, as exemplified in (33) (Kimmelman
2017), where the bare object BOOK can take scope over EVERY (33a) or EVERY scopes over the
object noun (33b). Kimmelman notes that the universal quantifiers EVERY and ALL show
slightly different possibilities of scope taking with respect to another quantifier depending
on their syntactic function (and position), with ALL tending to take narrow scope.
	                re
(33) VACATION STUDENT EVERY IXpl READ BOOK PUSHKIN POSS
‘During the vacation every student read a book by Pushkin.’
a. everyone read the same book: one > every.
b. everyone read one book, maybe different ones: every > one
(RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 828)
Ambiguity is also noted to arise in questions with a universally quantified subject and a
wh-​object, as in (34).
	                        re
(34) STUDENT EVERY IXpl ANSWER QUESTION WHICH
‘Which question did every student answer?’
a.  everyone answered the same question: one > every
b. everyone answered one question, maybe different ones: every > one
(RSL, Kimmelman 2017: 828)
Bare nouns enter scope interactions with quantified NPs that result in different interpretations,
as argued by Petronio (1995) on the basis of the ASL example (35). Out of the
blue, the preferred interpretation is (35a), but additional context elicits the two additional
interpretations in (35b) and (35c).
  re
(35) BOOK, TWO STUDENT BUY
a. ‘Two students each bought a book.’
b. ‘Two students together bought a book.’
c.  ‘Two students bought books.’ (ASL, Petronio 1995: 607)
Languages differ, though, in the range of possible interpretations. The corresponding
structure in LSC, for instance, only yields reading (35b) in the unmarked case. Readings
(35a) and (35c) only obtain with additional morphological marking on the verb (dual
435
Quantification
435
and random reduplication (allocative) morphology), respectively (Quer et al. 2017: 614).
Kimmelman (2017) also observes that D-​quantifiers interact with A-​quantifiers in RSL,
as attested in (36).
(36)  BOY TWO DANCE THREE-​TIMES
‘Two boys danced three times.’
a.  three times > two boys
b. two boys > three times (RSL)
Nevertheless, structures are also found where no such ambiguities arise. A good example of
this is the effect of the distributive morphology (see Section 19.3 above) in an LSC example
like (37), where the numeral in the subject phrase, the possessive in the object phrase, and
the agreement verb ASK are all marked for distributivity. Localization of the arguments in
signing space and directionality of the verb path from and towards the respective locations
excludes any type of scope ambiguity: the subject distributes over the object set.
	                 re
(37) STUDENT ONEdist TEACHER POSSdist ASKdist
‘Each student asked his/​her teacher.’ (LSC, Quer 2012: 90)
For similar examples of the use of space for scope disambiguation in ASL, see Abner &
Wilbur (2017: 54–​55).
19.4.3  Quantifiers and space
The central use of space in the signed modality leads to the expectation that some aspects
of quantification will resort to the possibilities afforded by this medium (see Schlenker
2018 and Chapter 23). In fact, a number of results reported in the literature point in this
direction. Since some of them are summarized in more detail in other chapters, they are
only briefly reported upon in this section.
Indefinite expressions in LSC have been shown to distinguish overtly between non-​
specific and specific interpretations (Barberà 2015): whereas ​specific indefinites and definites
are articulated on a lower plane, non-​specific indefinites are realized at a higher location, as
illustrated in (38) (see Barberà, Chapter 18). A similar interpretive distinction marked by
height has been found in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) by Kelepir et al. (2018), with the
additional finding that a [±lateral] feature encodes clusivity (inclusive vs. exclusive reference).
(38)  WHO^IX-​3pl.up MONEY 3-​STEAL-​3up
‘Someone stole the money.’ (LSC, Barberà & Quer 2013: 254)
For ASL, Davidson & Gagne (2014) interpret differences in the height of quantifiers as
contrasts in the size of sets quantified over: larger sets are articulated higher than smaller
sets, which are articulated lower. Thus, the higher the location, the larger the widening of
the set, as illustrated in (39).
(39) Context: Signer is discussing her friend getting a nanny for her children.
a. IX1 WILL FIND SOMEONELOW
‘I will find someone (among the usual group).’
436
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
436
b.  IX2 MUST FIND SOMEONEHIGH
‘You need to find someone (anyone)!’ (ASL, Davidson & Gagne 2014: 114)
Note that the distinctions are not seen as binary, but with intermediate levels of height.
The proposal is not only illustrated with indefinites, but also with plurals and negative
quantifiers.
Another interesting case, initially described in Schlenker et al. (2013) for ASL and LSF,
is the role of space in the possibility of having anaphoric reference to the complement
set of a quantifier when a subset has been established for a plural set. When a subset of
the larger plural set is not established overtly, anaphorically referring to the complement
set of the quantifier is not possible or extremely restricted, as in English (Most students
came to class. #They [the students that did not come] stayed home instead). However, if
the subset quantified over has been made explicit as in (40a) with a circular movement a
within the large plural locus ab for all students (the restrictor set of the quantifier), a subsequent
pronoun directed to the complement subset b can pick up the complement set, as
illustrated in the felicitous continuation (40b). This anaphoric possibility is excluded in
English and can be interpreted as a result of the iconic encoding of the sets in space (for
details, see Schlenker, Chapter 23).
(40)  a.  POSS1 STUDENT IX-​arc-​ab MOST IX-​arc-​a a-​CAME CLASS
‘Most of my students came to class.’
b. IX-​arc-​b b-​STAY HOME
‘They stayed home.’       (ASL, Schlenker et al. 2013: 98)
Finally, as discussed in Section 19.4.2, spatial localization can be used to disambiguate
potentially ambiguous sentences with multiple quantifiers (Quer 2012; Abner & Wilbur
2017). Thus, referential use of space, being one of the major modality-​specific phenomena
(Schlenker 2018), is also responsible for some modality-​specific patterns in quantification.
19.5  Conclusions
Despite the limited research on quantification in sign languages, it seems safe to conclude
that, as expected, the core properties that have been identified cross-​linguistically
in spoken languages are clearly present in languages in the visual-​spatial modality: the
division of labor between D-​quantification and A-​quantification is well established,
the same arrays of quantifiers appear in their lexicons, and scopal interactions among
quantifiers follow the usual patterns. However, some facts of the visual-​spatial modality
have also been shown to be at play. The possibility to use simultaneous morphemes and
signing space favors the marking of verbal plurality (or pluractionality) and distributivity
through this means, for instance. Overt encoding of information-​structural notions also
interacts with the realization of tripartite quantificational structures. In addition, spatial
distinctions have been shown to be at work in the expression of non-​specific expressions
or the size of sets involved in quantified phrases. More research is needed in a broader
set of sign languages, but the results obtained so far justify the incorporation of sign
language results in the comprehensive analysis of quantification in natural languages, as
already proposed in Bach et al. (1995) and Paperno & Keenan (2017), for instance.
437
Quantification
437
Acknowledgments
Josep Quer’s work on this chapter has been supported by the SIGN-​HUB project (2016–​
2020), funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
under grant agreement No. 693349. He would also like to thank the Spanish Ministry of
Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and FEDER Funds (FFI2015-​68594-​P), as well
as the Government of the Generalitat de Catalunya (2017 SGR 1478).
Notes
	1	Set-​theoretically, existential quantifiers are intersective, and universal quantifiers are co-​
intersective (see Keenan (2006) for the definitions).
	2	 Note that the 18 languages do not represent a balanced typological sample, so the generalizations
should be considered with some caution.
	3	Note that for some languages on the website, many more signs have been collected than for
others, so one cannot conclude that some languages lack these quantifiers altogether based on
the website.
	4	 Although it is debatable whether those are indeed D-​and not A-​quantifiers, according to Quer
(2012).
	5	Note that despite the gloss, this sign conveys sentential negation and it does not work as a
D-​quantifier in the language. It always appears sentence-​finally.
	6	 Note, however, that in these examples the morphological marker on the verb is combined with a
plurally marked NP; this is also possible in ASL (Petronio 1995).
	7	 These notations were not used by Filimonova (2012), but we introduce them here for uniformity.
Superficially, some of these forms look reminiscent of the allocative determinate and indeterminate
forms in ASL as reported in Klima & Bellugi (1979), but a proper comparison has not
been undertaken.
References
Abner, Natasha & Ronnie Wilbur. 2017. Quantifiers in American Sign Language. In Denis Paperno
& Edward L. Keenan (eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language: Volume II, 21–​59.
Cham: Springer.
Bach, Emmon, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, & Barbara Partee. 1995. Introduction. In Emmon
Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, & Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in natural
languages, 1–​11. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Barberà, Gemma. 2015. The meaning of space in sign language. Reference, specificity and structure in
Catalan Sign Language discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press.
Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer. 2013. Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In
Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke van Herreweghe, & Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.),
Sign language research, uses and practices: Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language
linguistics, 237–​258. Berlin and Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press.
Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer. 2015. Conveying genericity in Catalan Sign Language (LSC).
Presentation at the First SIGGRAM Meeting, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, April 21–​22, 2015.
Boster, Charles T. 1996. On the quantifier-​noun phrase split in American Sign Language and
the structure of quantified noun phrases. In William H. Emondson & Ronnie B. Wilbur
(eds.), International review of sign linguistics, Volume 1, 159–​208. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Braze, David. 2004. Aspectual inflection, verb raising and object fronting in American Sign
Language. Lingua 114(1). 29–​58.
Champollion, Lucas. 2015. Every boy bought two sausages each: Distributivity and dependent
numerals. In Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo García Pardo, Peter
Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara, & Iris Chuoying Ouyang (eds.), Proceedings of
the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 103–​110. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Press.
438
Vadim Kimmelman & Josep Quer
438
Davidson, Kathryn & Deanna Gagne. 2014. Vertical representation of quantifier domains. In Urtzi
Etxeberria, Anamaria Falaus, Aritz Irurtzun, & Bryan Leferman (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und
Bedeutung 18, 110–​127.
Evans, Nick. 1995. A-​quantifiers and scope in Mayali. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek,
Angelika Kratzer, & Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in natural languages, 207–​270.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Filimonova, Elizaveta V. 2012. Sredstva vyraženija distributivnoj množestvennosti v russkom
žestovom jazyke (Means of expressing distributive plurality in Russian Sign Language). In Olga
V. Fedorova (ed.), Russkij žestovij jazyk:  pervaja lingvističeskaja konferentsija (Russian Sign
Language: the first linguistic conference), 82–​97. Moscow: Buki Vedi.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts PhD dissertation.
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo
Janssen, & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Part 1, 277–​322.
Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.
Keenan, Edward L. 2006. Quantifiers: Semantics. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopaedia of language
and linguistics Vol. 10, 302–​308. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Keenan, Edward L. & Denis Paperno. 2012. Overview. In Edward L. Keenan & Denis Paperno
(eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural languages, 941–​949. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kelepir, Meltem, Aslı Özkul, & Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak. 2018. Agent-​backgrounding in Turkish
Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language & Linguistics 21(2). 258–​284.
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2015a. Distributive quantification in Russian Sign Language. Paper presented
at Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Barcelona, May 4–​6.
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2015b. Quantifiers in RSL:  Distributivity and compositionality. In Peter
Arkadiev, Ivan Kapitonov, Yury Lander, Ekaterina Rakhilina, & Sergei Tatevosov (eds.), Donum
Semanticum, 121–​134. Moscow: Jazyki Slavjanskoj Kuljtury.
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2017. Quantifiers in Russian Sign Language. In Denis Paperno & Edward L.
Keenan (eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language: Volume II, 803–​855. Cham: Springer.
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard
University Press.
Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia,
& Godehard Link. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry
Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 1–​124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Jeremy. 2017. Dependent indefinites: The view from sign language. Journal of Semantics
34(3). 449–​491.
Kuhn, Jeremy. 2019. Pluractionality and distributive numerals. Language and Linguistics Compass
13(2). e12309.
Kuhn, Jeremy & Valentina Arsitodemo. 2017. Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign
Language. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(6).
Matthewson, Lisa (ed.). 2008. Quantification: A cross-​linguistic perspective. Bingley: Emerald.
Meier, Richard P. 2012. Language and modality. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach, & Bencie Woll
(eds.), Sign Language. An international handbook, 574–​601. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Paperno, Denis & Edward L. Keenan (eds.). 2017. Handbook of quantifiers in natural lan-
guage: Volume II. Cham: Springer.
Partee, Barbara H. 1992. Topic, focus, and quantification. In Steven K. Moore & Adam Zachary
Wyner (eds.), Proceedings of SALT I, 159–​189. Ithaca, NY: DMLL Publications.
Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Quantificational structures and compositionality. In Emmon Bach, Eloise
Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, & Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in natural languages, 541–​601.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Petronio, Karen. 1995. Bare noun phrases, verbs and quantification in ASL. In Emmon Bach,
Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, & Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in natural languages,
603–​618. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Quer, Josep. 2012. Quantificational strategies across language modalities. In Maria Aloni, Vadim
Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen, Galit Sassoon, Katrin Schulz, & Matthijs Westera (eds.),
Selected papers from 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, 8291. Berlin: Springer.
Quer, Josep. 2019. Reduplication revisited: Verbal plurality and exhaustivity in the visual-​gestural
modality. Sensos-​e VI (1). sensos-​e.v6i1.3459.
439
Quantification
439
Quer, Josep & Markus Steinbach. 2015. Ambiguities in sign languages. The Linguistic Review 32(1).
143–​165.
Quer, Josep, Carlo Cecchetto, Roland Pfau, Caterina Donati, Markus Steinbach, Carlo Geraci,
& Meltem Kelepir (scientific directors). 2017. SignGram Blueprint. A  guide to sign language
grammar writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-​Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2018. Visible meaning:  Sign language and the foundations of semantics.
Theoretical Linguistics 44(3–​4). 123–​208.
Schlenker, Philippe, John Lamberton, & Mirko Santoro. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics and
Philosophy 36(2). 91–​149.
Steinbach, Markus. 2012. Plurality. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach, & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign
language: An international handbook, 112–​236. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Cynthia Patschke. 1999. Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign
Language & Linguistics 2(1). 3–​41.
Zeshan, Ulrike, César Ernesto Escobedo Delgado, Hasan Dikyuva, Sibaji Panda, & Connie de Vos.
2013. Cardinal numerals in rural sign languages: Approaching cross-​modal typology. Linguistic
Typology 17(3). 357–​396.