Individuation criteria and copredication: modification in context

Abstract

When instances of copredication (e.g., 'damaged, insightful book') are combined with quantification such as that provided by numerals (e.g., 'three damaged, insightful books'), it has been argued that the result is a 'double-distinctness' interpretation. For instance, ‘three damaged insightful books, each of which are physically distinct and informationally distinct from the others’ (see, e.g, Gotham, 2017; Chatzikyriakidis and Luo, 2018). However, doubt has been cast on this view by Liebesman and Magidor (2017, 2019), who provide examples where the double distinctness reading does not arise. The challenge that is taken up in this paper is to explain, in a systematic way, why quantified copredication constructions seem to have double-distinctness interpretations in simple and/or minimal contexts, and also why and on what basis these can be overridden in more elaborate contexts.