The extra-wide scope of universal quantifiers Syntax or semantics?
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
On the classic generative approach the logical scope of a quantifier cannot extend beyond the finite clause in which it appears, i.e., it cannot have extra-wide scope. It has been claimed, though not yet adequately substantiated empirically, that certain subjunctive complement clauses constitute an exception to this generalization: a universal quantifier that occurs within such a clause can bear extra-wide scope. On Wurmbrand’s (2013; 2018) syntactic account, this motivates a weakening of the classic locality constraint on quantifier scope formulated in terms of a finite clause boundary. An alternative, semantic approach championed by Farkas and Giannakidou’s (1996) holds that the exceptional extra-wide scope at issue is due to semantic reanalysis.
Our study investigates the phenomenon on the basis of judgments collected from Hungarian native speakers. It is demonstrated that (1) while an extra-wide quantifier scope interpetation is indeed available in the critical construction type, (2) it is also available in a minimally different sentence type to which Farkas and Giannakidou’s explanation involving semantic reanalysis can be extended, but which is left unaccounted for by a weakening of the classic locality restriction on quantifier scope à la Wurmbrand. Building on this result, we argue in favour of an approach in terms of semantic reanalysis, and against giving up the uniform syntactic locality constraint on quantifier scope defined in terms of finite clause boundaries.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Barwise, Jon – Robin Cooper 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4/2:159–219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00350139
Beghelli, Filippo 1993. A minimalist approach to quantifier scope. In Amy J. Schafer (szerk.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23. Vol. 1 Amherst: GLSA Publications, University of Massachussetts. 65–80.
Cecchetto, Carlo 2004. Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases. Natural Language Semantics 12/4:345–397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-1189-x
Dikken, Marcel den – Antje Lahne 2013. The locality of syntactic dependencies. In Marcel den Dikken (szerk.) The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 655–698. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.023
É. Kiss Katalin 1992. Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete. In Kiefer Ferenc (szerk.) Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 1. Mondattan. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 79–177.
É. Kiss, Katalin 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farkas, Donka 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Roberta A. Hendrick – Carrie S. Masek – Mary Frances Miller (szerk.) Papers form the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 59–66.
Farkas, Donka F. – Anastasia Giannakidou 1996. How clause-bounded is the scope of universals? In Teresa Galloway – Justin Spence (szerk.) Proceedings of the 6th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference. Ithaca: Cornell University. 35–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v6i0.2764
Fodor, Janet Dean – Ivan A. Sag 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5/3:355–398. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351459
Fox, Danny 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 35) Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fox, Danny – Uli Sauerland 1996. Illusive scope of universal quantifiers. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (szerk.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society. Vol. 26 Amherst: GLSA. 71–85.
Grano, Thomas – Howard Lasnik 2018. How to neutralize a finite clause boundary: Phase theory and the grammar of bound pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 49/3:465–499. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00279
Hendriks, Herman 1993. Studied Flexibility: Categories and Types in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Ioup, Georgette 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. In John P. Kimball (szerk.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 4 New York: Academic Press. 37–58.
Johnson, Kyle 2000. How far quantifiers go? In Roger Martin – David Michaels – Juan Uriagereka (szerk.) Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 187–210.
Krifka, Manfred 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9/1:1–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017903702063
May, Robert 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. PhD disszertáció. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
May, Robert 1985. Logical Form. Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Ross, John Robert 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD disszertáció. Cambridge.
Syrett, Kristen 2015. Experimental support for inverse scope readings of finite-clause-embedded antecedent-contained-deletion sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 46/3:579–592. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00194
Szabolcsi, Anna 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Anna Szabolcsi (szerk.) Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. 109–154.
Tanaka, Misako 2015a. Asymmetries in long-distance QR. In Anna E. Jurgensen – Hannah Sande – Spencer Lamoureux – Kenny Baclawski – Alison Zerbe (szerk.) Proceedings of Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Vol. 41 Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 493–501. doi: https://doi.org/10.20354/B4414110000
Tanaka, Misako 2015b. Scoping out of Adjuncts: Evidence for the Parallelism between QR and Wh-movement. PhD disszertáció. London: University College London.
Wurmbrand, Susanne 2013. QR and selection: Covert evidence for phasehood. In Stefan Keine – Shayne Slogget (szerk.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society. Vol. 42. 619–632.
Wurmbrand, Susanne 2018. The cost of raising quantifiers. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3/1:19. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.329