Formal Approaches to Semantic Microvariation: Adverbial ...

BCP 1 s ({x : ∃e(Reading(e,I,x) & Book(x))})
BCP 1 s
{x : ∃e(Reading(e,I,x) & Book(x))}
∃
{< e,x >: Reading(e,I,x) & Book(x)}
I
{< y,e,x >: Reading(e,y,x) & Book(x)}
{< x,y,e >: Reading(e,y,x)}
{z: Book(z)}
On the other hand, European French beaucoup has a binary extension to relations
composed of pairs, but the unary adverb itself can only quantify over
events.
This new analysis of QF results in a rather unusual situation: beaucoup is in an
adverbial position, but it’s quantifying over objects. Recall that QAD in both dialects
is limited to those adnominal quantifiers that also double as eventive adverbs. Why
would QAD be limited to adverbial quantifiers if beaucoup in a QAD structure is not
semantically an eventive adverb? In the next section, I argue that this state of affairs
is understandable if we consider the historical development of the Quantification at a
Distance construction.
3.3 The Source of Dialectal Variation
In this section, I propose that there is a historical answer for why beaucoup in Québec
French can quantify over both events and objects, despite it being syntactically an
adverb. In particular, I argue that the widening of the domain of beaucoup to include
individuals was a result of the reanalysis of the adnominal determiner beaucoup, whose
domain is properties of individuals, as an adverb in the Middle French period (MF:
75