Hierarquia dos quantifiers


Estou procurando uma tabela, lista ou desenho que ilustre as várias maneiras de expressar quantidades (bem como sua hierarquia), como "little", "a little", "not much", "some", "much", "enough", "plenty" etc.

Alguém tem algo do tipo? Procurei no Google, mas não dei muita sorte.

Mais Votada Mais Votada

Avatar do usuário PPAULO 36510 4 32 643
I tried to stick to the KIS (keep it simple) motto. Since other than that, there´s some academical forays on the subject of "hierarchy of quantifiers". One such is the " Ioup´s Hierarchy ".


Quantifiers Hierarchy

Each > every > all > most > many > several > some (+NP pl) > a few
Greatest inherent tendency--------------------- least inherent tendency
------------------------[Toward wide scope] ---------------------------------

http://www.skycode.com/lucho's/V_Valin_ ... eading.pdf

But then, at this juncture, it would be almost an off-topic comment. Just an aside note, because I think it´s beside the point.

Anyway, let´s wait for more advanced learners, or the guys on the know. Meanwhile I will be dealing with the easier issues and keeping my eyes peeled for answers to the question at hand.
If any other questions arise, we will be glad to give it a stab.
MENSAGEM PATROCINADA Aprenda dicas sobre os tempos verbais em inglês! Baixe agora o seu Guia Grátis de Tempos Verbais em Inglês. Ele contém um ótimo resumo para revisar todos os conceitos.

Clique aqui e saiba como baixar!
Avatar do usuário PPAULO 36510 4 32 643
I never have seen anywhere about quantifiers´ hierarchy, but there are plenty of stuff on quantifiers´usage, from which emerge a pattern (a gradation of sorts).

Enjoy it.

https://www.englishexperts.com.br/forum/ ... t1252.html

http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/ ... uantifiers

http://www.inglesnapontadalingua.com.br ... ittle.html

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/gram ... -few-a-few

http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/ ... uantifier/
That's not exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks, tho.
Avatar do usuário Marcio_Farias 12290 1 21 206
PP, which quantifiers comprise the "greatest inherent tendency? Do many, several and a few comprise the "least inherent tendency"
Avatar do usuário PPAULO 36510 4 32 643
In fact I don´t think of it in absolute terms, more on terms of polarization.
But then, if you (and I) wish something close to that, it would be that "Each" would have the greastest inherent tendency towards wide scope (i.e. the almost ultimate all-embracing quantifier, since we are talking about "one by one'' or "each member of a group withouth exception".

Conversely, "a few" would mean "the least inherent tendency" towards encopassing a wide scope of the group. In a way, ''scope" would be the length of the considered group.
So, "few" looked up on a Thesaurus would mean "scarcely any", or "a bit" etc. All in the sense of a scattered few.) Only that "a few" refers to a specifically known ammount.

Why I cited "absolute terms" and why the "inherent tendency"?
Because the usage/interpretation of quantifiers can take a turn, depending on other factors. For example, many authors posit that lexical factors, linear order etc.

Ioup approach was "a grammatical approach", in which there was two possible scopes, on a 5-point scale (1=unambiguous wide scope indefinite, 5=unambiguous narrow scope indefinite). So, being a pioneer, her studies are cited and taken as a basis to other quantifier scope disambiguation (QSD) (scope prediction in Higgins & Sadock 2003’s terms).

http://www.skycode.com/lucho's/V_Valin_ ... eading.pdf

Again, I tried to keep it simple and concise. But then, academical parlance doesn´t leave much room to be like that.
And, other members of the Forum feel free to complement my reply and/or improve it; since I am making forays into higher education level, sort of.
And not even being my field (my wanna-be major was management - and I dropped out, unfortunately.) :(