The core meaning of al/alle is universal quantification: it indicates that all members of the denotation set of a subject noun phrase are part of the denotation set of the predicate. When combined with count nouns, al/alle applies to sets, not to structured units. The difference between these two notions can be illustrated by the pairs in (7). While at a certain level of abstraction the noun phrases de bomenthe trees and het bosthe forest can refer to the same entity in the extra-linguistic universe, they are linguistically distinct in that de bomen refers to a contextually determined set of trees, while het bos refers to a unit that is structured in the sense that it happens to consist of a set of trees. The primeless examples in (7) show that al/alle can be used in noun phrases referring to sets, but not in noun phrases referring to structured units. For completeness’ sake, the primed examples show that al is fundamentally different from the predeterminer heelall/whole in this respect; cf. Section 20.2.1.1.

Al/alle can also precede non-count nouns. This is true for both concrete substance nouns such as wijnwine and abstract psychological predicates such as ellendemisery. In these cases, al indicates that the full contextually determined quantity of the entity denoted by the noun is intended.

An important difference between predeterminer bare al and inflected alle concerns the generic interpretation of noun phrases. It comes to the fore most clearly with nouns like zebra, which can refer to a species. The bare plural zebra’s in (9a) can have either a non-generic reading, in which case it refers to a specific set of zebras, or a generic reading, in which case it refers to typical members of the species; cf. Section 18.1.1.5. The definite noun phrase de zebra’s, on the other hand, can normally only be used in specific statements: (9b) is unacceptable as a generic statement about zebras, and it is also awkward as a statement about a specific set of zebras, since all zebras happen to be striped.

Turning now to examples with the universal quantifiers alle and al, we find that noun phrases with inflected alle behave like bare plurals, and noun phrases with bare al behave like definite noun phrases: the noun phrase alle zebra’s in the (a)-examples in (10) can be given a specific or generic interpretation, whereas the noun phrase al de zebra’s in the (b)-examples is usually given a specific interpretation.

Another way of describing these data is to say that the noun phrase alle zebra’s can be used to refer either to the set of zebras in the domain of discourse (domain D), or simply to all zebras in the speaker’s conception of the universe. The noun phrase al de zebra’s, on the other hand, can only be used to refer to the zebras in domain D. This means that the meaning of the noun phrase al de zebra’s is strictly compositional: the noun phrase de zebra’s refers to the zebras in domain D, and the predeterminer al emphasizes that literally all entities in domain D that satisfy the description of the NP zebra’s are included in the set referred to by the definite noun phrase. The fact that alle and al de differ in this way is a first indication that a merger approach to alle, according to which alle is a contracted form of the predeterminer bare al and the definite determiner, cannot be sustained.

That a merger approach to alle is not feasible is also suggested by the fact that alle, but not al de, can be used to express high-degree quantification; cf. the examples in (11). That the semantic contribution of alle in (11a) is not universal quantification but degree modification is clear from the fact that alle tijd does not mean “all time(s)” but “lots of time”; this example also shows that the predeterminer al cannot be used in this way. Other examples of the same kind are given in (11b&c). Note in passing that the use of all is impossible in the English translation of (11a) (although it occurs in the translation of the saying Ik heb alle tijd in de wereldI have all the time in the world); however, the examples in (11b&c) can be rendered in English with the help of the quantifier every.

The high-degree reading of alle is often found in noun phrases headed by abstract non-count nouns, especially when they are embedded in PPs headed by inin or voorfor; cf. the cases in (12). Note that the meaning of in alle eerlijkheid/redelijkheid in (12a) is accurately rendered by in all honesty/fairness; this shows that English all can also express high-degree quantification, although it is used less abundantly than alle in Dutch.

Noun phrases quantified by high-degree alle are weak in the sense of Section 19.2.1, sub II. This has already been illustrated by the examples in (11), which show that such noun phrases can be used in presentative sentences: they occur as object in the presentative possessive-have construction in (11a) and as subject in the expletive er constructions in (11b&c). In this respect, these noun phrases are fundamentally different from noun phrases headed by the universal quantifier alle, which are strong: (13b) shows that noun phrases modified by universal alle cannot occur in expletive er constructions.

This argument cannot be reproduced for bare al, since it never combines with bare plurals (cf. Section 20.1.2.1); the contrast between the examples in (14) can therefore be attributed to the presence of the definite article. This makes it difficult to show whether or not bare al is a strong quantifier; however, the fact that al expresses universal quantification, combined with the fact that the universal quantifier alle is strong, makes this a reasonable assumption.