Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 217–264 | Cite as

On the syntax of disjunction scope

  • Richard K. Larson
Article

Conclusion

The account of disjunction proposed above is an interesting one, I believe, not simply because a principled account has been given of a certain collection of data, but also because the relation between the syntactic and semantic analyses is an intuitively satisfying one. Under the account argued for here the syntactic properties of elements such as either and whether are almost entirely predictable given three components of information: (i) the meaning of disjunction as explicated by Rooth and Partee (1982); (ii) a number of general principles and conditions, and (iii) certain very simple lexical facts such as the fact that either is [−WH], while whether is [+WH]. In view of the first component we know that disjunction takes scope through binding of a free variable. The second component presumably gives us that scope is syntactically represented, that scope assignment involves movement to an Ā position, that the trace of this movement is subject to ECP, that the domain of this movement is bounded by Subjacency, &c. Finally, given either and whether as scope indicators, the third component entails that the former adjoins to S, and so marks scope within the minimal sentence containing its associated disjunction, while the latter moves to COMP, and so may mark scope in broader domains.

From the standpoint of language acquisition these represent promising results, particularly when considered with reference to recent thinking in the philosophy of mind. Suppose we assume, following Fodor (1983), that certain meanings or concepts — perhaps a large number of them — are given to the language learner as a part of universal biological endowment, and that the task of acquiring these meanings is essentially one of ‘identification’, i.e., of matching concepts with morphemes from the spoken environment. The meanings of basic logical connectives such as and, or, if are plausible candidates for membership in this universally available class. Then adopting the semantics of disjunction discussed above, the language learner will know that or takes scope, and that he or she may tacitly expect scope markers. The task then reduces essentially to identifying such markers in the stock of morphemes encountered, of picking out either and whether as the relevant items, or of postulating their null counterparts in languages where phonetically realized markers are lacking. Once this identification is made, the syntactic properties of either and whether then follow immediately, as we have seen. Correlatively, given our results concerning conjunction, the language learner will also know that and does not take scope, and hence that no such markers are to be expected or hypothesized. Thus he or she would tacitly know that both is not and could not be a scope indicator, and hence must be assigned some other syntactic status, say, quantifier phrase. If this general picture is correct, therefore, we appear to move toward a genuinely explanatory account of disjunction.

Keywords

Language Learner Free Variable Language Acquisition Relevant Item Plausible Candidate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein, and Dominique Sportiche: 1981, ‘Some Aspects of Wide Scope Quantification’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 69–95.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, Carl Leroy: 1970, ‘Notes on the Description of English Questions: the Role of an Abstract Question Morpheme’, Foundations of Language 6, 197–219.Google Scholar
  3. Bolinger, Dwight: 1978, ‘Yes-no Questions are Not Alternative Questions’, in H. Hiz (ed.), Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Bresnan, Joan: 1972, Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. —: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequence of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. --: 1984, ‘Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use’, unpublished MIT.Google Scholar
  8. Emonds, Joseph: 1976, A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, Jerrold: 1983, Modularity of Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Gazdar, Gerald: 1981, ‘Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structures’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 155–184.Google Scholar
  11. Grimshaw, Jane: 1977, English Wh-Constructions and the Theory of Grammar, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  12. Heim, Irene: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Higginbotham, James: 1980, ‘Pronouns and Bound Variables’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679–708.Google Scholar
  14. — and Robert May: 1981, ‘Questions, Quantifiers and Crossing’, The Linguistic Review 1, 41–79.Google Scholar
  15. Huang, James: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Jespersen, Otto: 1909–49, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Allen and Unwin, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Kamp, Johanes van: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Third Amsterdam Colloquium Series, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Karttunen, Laurie: 1977, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44.Google Scholar
  19. Kayne, Richard: 1981, ‘ECP Extensions’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133.Google Scholar
  20. Keyser, S. Jay and Paul Postal: 1976, Beginning English Grammar, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, George and Stanley Peters: 1966, ‘Phrasal Conjunction and Symmetric Predicates’, in D. A. Reibel and S. Shane (eds.), Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  22. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–289.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, David: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  24. May, Robert: 1977, The Grammar of Quantification, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Quine, Willard v. Orman: 1976, The Ways of Paradox, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Pesetsky, David: 1982, Paths and Categories, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Reinhart, Tanya: 1979, ‘Syntactic Domains for Semantic Rules’, in F. Guenthner and S. J. Schmidt (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Rooth, Matts and Barbara Partee: 1982, ‘Conjunction, Type Ambiguity and Wide Scope Or’, in D. Flickenger, M. Macken and N. Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Linguistics Dept., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  29. Sag, Ivan, Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow, and Steven Weisler: 1985, ‘Coordination and How to Distinguish Categories’, NLLT, this issue, 117–171.Google Scholar
  30. Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter, and Barbara Partee: 1977, Major Syntactic Structures of English, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Stowell, Timothy: 1982, Origins of Phrase Structure, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard K. Larson
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of LinguisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations