Subject: sum : quantification

about four weeks ago , in linguist 8 . 948 , i asked a question on behalf of the basque language academy 's grammar commission about the standard or recommended scope of " quantifier " and " quantification " as grammatical terms , with special reference to the function of " so many " and " so " in sentences like : there were so many students that we needed a larger classroom . the students were so intelligent that we needed to get another teacher . i wished to know whether it is considered terminologically appropriate to say that not only " many " and " so many " but also " very " and " so " quantify , and thus that the function of all of these ( including what i call degree modifiers ) is quantification . better to contextualize the terminological problem that motivated the question in the first place and to help clarify the following report / discussion , let me suggest , ad hoc , calling the two positions contemplated the " quantifiers versus degree modifiers " position and the " quantifiers subsuming degree modifiers " position respectively ; or for short , the versus position and the subsuming position . it is also only honest for me to declare at this point that my personal position has always been and continues to be that of the versus view , although i tried to word the original question neutrally . at this point i perhaps ought to note that several respondents seem to prefer to treat " so many ( students ) " and " so ( intelligent ) " as merely various occurrences of a single item " so " rather than treating _ so many _ as an " item " to be discussed in its own right . i view this as a manifestation of linguistic anglocentrism : unlike english , in many languages " so many " is not expressed by the item equivalent to english " so " plus a quantifier equivalent to english " many " , and since i was not particularly asking about english in my question , i reject the assumption that the english lexical composition of " so many " is of crucial relevance to the issue i raised . thanks to the following who responded to my question : bruce d . despain , patricia galea , e . h . klein - v . d . laaken , jan k . lindstrom , p . l . peterson and marilyn n . silva . a summary of their answers and suggestions follows , with an interjection of my own personal opinion at times , identified by my initials ark . marilyn silva supports the versus position , stating that " quantifiers determine noun phrases , not adjectives . " for " very " and " so " she prefers the term " intensifier " to my proposed " degree modifier " . patricia galea expresses the same views . ( [ ark : ] since my original question was not about the latter terms , i shall refrain from defending my preference of " degree modifier " over " intensifier " in this context ; larry trask 's _ dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics _ treats the two terms as interchangeble . ) marilyn silva also discussed what i called " consecutive " sentences , pointing out that the subordinate clauses in the two english examples cited above , " . . . that we needed a larger classroom " and " . . . that we needed to get another teacher " , are called " adverbial clauses of extent " in her treatment of english grammar , _ grammar in many voices _ ( ntc pub . group , 1995 ) . she considers that here " it is the clause that seems to quantify , not the intensifier in the main clause " . silva went on to point out that english clauses of extent can be licensed by a main clause containing _ so _ ( with or without _ many _ ) , as above , but also by one containing _ such _ , as in : george was such a gentleman that he never raised his voice . and draws our attention to the fact that _ such _ could hardly be called a quantifier . ( [ ark : ] this argument seems to be of general typological interest , independently of the fact that there is no real equivalent of this use of _ such _ in basque . ) in all these sentences with extent clauses , silva argues , " it is the [ subordinate ] clause that seems to quantify , not the intensifier in the main clause . . . which merely licenses the subordinate clause . " according to silva , then , _ so _ and _ such _ should not be lumped together with items like _ many _ or _ very _ in any case , in line with the view that they do not themselves quantify but merely license a subordinate clause which quantifies . looking beyond english , jan lindstrom pointed out that in swedish a single lexical item , _ mycket _ , functions both as a quantifier ( of nouns ) meaning " much " and as a degree modifier or intensifier of adjectives meaning " very " , providing the following examples : 1 ) da " r fanns mycket folk . ' there was much people ' 2 ) hon a " r mycket intelligent . ' she is very intelligent ' lindstrom does not seem to be defending a particular terminological usage in providing this observation , but merely wishes to offer useful information that may be of interest in the discussion . [ ark : ] it seems to me that while the interest of this sort of observation is undeniable , it does not obviate the need for a terminological distinction , nor does it justify the subsumes position , but rather illustrates the need for linguists to employ a clear meta-language to enable us to distinguish between items or uses even where , as here , their formal expressions overlap language-specifically . ( by the way , some other instances of the use of a single form for " very " and " much " include portuguese _ muito _ , catalan _ molt _ , and italian _ molto _ ; but i can think of many more languages that do not show this kind of overlap or homonymy . ) philip peterson wrote discussing in somewhat more abstract terms the actual semantics of terms like " many " and " more " , and referred me to his article " complexly fractionated syllogistic quantifiers " ( journal of philosophical logic , 1991 , 20 , 287-313 ) . bruce despain 's comments are oriented to language-specific issues of syntactic classification of quantifiers in english that are not likely to be relevant to a description of basque , for which reason i shall not report his suggestions here . henny klein brought to my attention the following bibliographical reference : gary , e . ( 1979 ) extent in english . a unified account of degree and quantity . phd thesis , university of california , los angeles . in summary , none of those who responded favoured the subsuming position according to which " very " and " so " can be referred to as quantifiers or their function as quantification ( unless that was what jan lindstrom wished to imply ; it is my understanding that it was not ) . four of the six answers do not actually lean one way or the other . the two answers that address my question directly and suggest an answer , those of silva and galea , both constitute votes for the versus position . eskerrik asko denoi ( many thanks to all ) alan r . king , ph . d . alanking @ bigfoot . com alternative email addresses : mccay @ redestb . es , a @ eirelink . com , 70244 . 1674 @ compuserve . com snail : orkolaga plaza 3 1a , 20800 zarautz , basque country , spain phone : + 34-43 - 134125 / fax : + 34-43 - 130396 visit my web page at - - > http : / / www . eirelink . com / alanking /
