Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T20:23:16.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distributive Numerals and Distance Distributivity in Tlingit (and Beyond)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Seth Cable
Seth Cable*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Amherst
*
Department of Linguistics University of Massachusetts Amherst 226 South College 150 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9274 [scable@linguist.umass.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article develops a formal semantic and syntactic analysis of distributive numerals in Tlingit, a highly endangered language of Alaska, British Columbia, and the Yukon. Such numerals enforce a ‘distributive reading’ of the sentence, and thus are one instance of the broader phenomenon of ‘distance distributivity’ (Zimmermann 2002). As in many other languages, a Tlingit sentence containing a distributive numeral can describe two distinct kinds of ‘distributive scenarios’: (i) a scenario where the distribution is over some plural entity (e.g. ‘My sons caught three fish each’), and (ii) one where the distribution is over some plural event (e.g. ‘My sons caught three fish each time’) (Gil 1982, Choe 1987, Zimmermann 2002, Oh 2005). Despite this apparent ambiguity, I put forth a univocal semantics for Tlingit distributive numerals, one whereby they consistently invoke quantification over events. Under this semantics, the ability of distributive numerals to describe both kinds of scenarios in (i) and (ii) is due not to an ambiguity, but instead to the sentences having relatively weak truth conditions. In contrast to prior analyses of distributive numerals and distance distributivity, the proposed semantics does not actually make use of distributive operators, but nevertheless retains a rather conservative picture of the syntax-semantics interface. The analysis can also account for certain locality effects noted for distance distributives in Korean and German (Zimmermann 2002, Oh 2005), as well as an intriguing puzzle regarding distributive numerals and pluractionality in Kaqchikel (Henderson 2011). Finally, I show how the analysis can be extended to the well-known case of English ‘binominal each’.*

Keywords

distributivitydistributive numeraldistance distributivityanti-quantifierdependent indefinitepluractionalpluractional adverbTlingitbinominal each

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 2014, pp. 562 - 606
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bach, Emmon. 1986. Natural language metaphysics. Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science VII, ed. by Barcan-Marcus, Ruth, Dorn, George J. W., and Weingartner, Paul, 573–95. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Balusu, Rajul. 2006. Distributive reduplication in Telugu. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 36. 39–52.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A. R. 1964. Klamath grammar. (University of California publications in linguistics 38.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56.10.1007/s11050-005-4532-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, and Kim, Shin-Sook. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6. 339–84.10.1023/A:1008280026102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, and Stechow, Arnim von. 2007. Pluractional adverbials. Journal of Semantics 24. 215–54.10.1093/jos/ffm003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1917. Grammatical notes on the language of the Tlingit Indians. (University of Pennsylvania University Museum anthropological publications 8.1.) Philadelphia: University Museum.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus nonatomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 129–209.10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Henderson, Robert. 2009. Varieties of distributivity: One by one vs. each. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. 55–72. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/278.10.3765/salt.v19i0.2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195094275.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champollion, Lucas. 2012. Each vs. jeweils: A cover-based view on distance distributivity. Logic, language, and meaning: 18th Amsterdam colloquium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 19-21, 2011: Revised selected papers, ed. by Aloni, Maria, Kimmelman, Vadim, Roelofsen, Floris, Sassoon, Galit W., Schulz, Katrin, and Westera, Matthijs, 251–60. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Choe, Jae-Woong. 1987. Anti-quantifiers and a theory of distributivity. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Cusic, David. 1981. Verbal plurality and aspect. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dauenhauer, Nora Marks, and Dauenhauer, Richard. 1987. Classics of Tlingit oral literature, vol. 1: Haa shuká, our ancestors: Tlingit oral narratives. Juneau: Sealaska Heritage Institute.Google Scholar
Dauenhauer, Nora Marks, and Dauenhauer, Richard. 2000. Beginning Tlingit. Juneau: Sealaska Heritage Institute.Google Scholar
Dotlacil, Jakub. 2012. Binominal each as an anaphoric determiner: Compositional analysis. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16. 211–24.Google Scholar
Edwards, Keri. 2009. Dictionary of Tlingit. Juneau: Sealaska Heritage Institute.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1997. Dependent indefinites. Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics, ed. by Corblin, Francis, Godard, Daniele, and Marandin, Jean-Marie, 243–68. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. 2009. L-triviality and grammar. L-triviality and grammar: University of Connecticut, ms. Online: http://gajewski.uconn.edu/papers/Logic.pdf.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1982. Distributive numerals. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Henderson, Robert. 2011. Pluractional distributivity and dependence. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 21. 218–35. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/324.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109–38. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2003. The event argument. The event argument: University of Massachusetts Amherst, ms. Online: http://www.semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GU1NWM4Z/.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2008. On the plurality of verbs. Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, ed. by Doelling, Johannes, Zybatow, Tatjana Heyde, and Schaefer, Martin, 269–300. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1990. Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 487–520.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. Lexical matters, ed. by Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna, 29–54. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction, and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8581-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2011. Mass nouns and plurals. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, ed. by Heusinger, Klaus von, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul, 1131–53. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff. 1991. The schetic categories of the Tlingit verb. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff. 2010. The palatal series in Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, with an overview of the basic sound correspondences. The Dene-Yeniseian connection (Anthropological papers of the University of Alaska 5.1-2), ed. by Kari, James and Potter, Ben A., 168–93. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff, Hitch, Doug; and Ritter, John. 2001. Interior Tlingit noun dictionary: The dialects spoken by Tlingit elders of Carcross and Teslin, Yukon, and Atlin, British Columbia. Whitehorse: Yukon Native Language Centre.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. by Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Cristoph, and Stechow, Arnim von, 302–23. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70. 369–415.10.1086/429207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1988. Ambiguities of quantification and wh: A reply to Williams. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 118–35.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Naish, Constance. 1966. A syntactic study of Tlingit. (Language data, Amerindian series 6.) Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 1990. Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110874211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Sei-Rang. 2001. Distributivity in an event semantics. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 11. 326–45. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/294.Google Scholar
Oh, Sei-Rang. 2005. Plurality markers across languages. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 2002. Eventualities and narrative progression. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 681–99.10.1023/A:1020863700064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken, and Stowell, Tim. 1988. Binominal each. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 18. 426–50.Google Scholar
Scha, Remko. 1984. Distributive, collective, and cumulative quantification. Truth, interpretation, and information, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo, and Stokhof, Martin, 131–59. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Story, Gillian. 1966. A morphological study of Tlingit. (Language data, Amerindian series 7.) Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511781681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, Martin. 1996. Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 2004. For-adverbials, frequentative aspect, and pluractionality. Natural Language Semantics 12. 135–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 2000. Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics 8. 27–69.10.1023/A:1008313715103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2002. Boys buying two sausages each: On the syntax and semantics of distance-distributivity. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar