Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 283–341 | Cite as

Economy and scope

  • Danny Fox
Article

Abstract

This paper argues in favor of two claims: (a) that Scope Shifting Operations (Quantifier Raising and Quantifier Lowering) are restricted by economy considerations, and (b) that the relevant economy considerations compare syntactic derivations that end up interpretively identical. These ideas are shown to solve several puzzles having to do with the interaction of scope with VP ellipsis, coordination, and the interpretation of bare plurals. Further, the paper suggests a way of dealing with the otherwise puzzling clause-boundedness of Quantifier Raising.

Keywords

Economy Consideration Quantifier Lowering Shifting Operation Relevant Economy Bare Plural 
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. Abusch, Dorit: 1994, ‘The Scope of Indefinites’,Natural Language Semantics 2(2), 83–135.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, Charles L.: 1970, ‘Notes on the Description of English Questions: The Role of an Abstract Question Morpheme’,Foundations of Language 6, 197–219.Google Scholar
  3. Belvadi, A.: 1989, ‘Quantified NPs and Pronouns’, unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  4. Bobalijk, Jonathan and Dianne Jonas: forthcoming, ‘Subject Positions and the Roles of TP’, to appear inLinguistic Inquiry. Google Scholar
  5. Bures, Anton: 1993, ‘There Is an Argument for an LF Cycle Here’,Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 28.Google Scholar
  6. Burton, Strang and Jane Grimshaw: 1992, ‘Coordination and VP Internal Subjects’,Linguistic Inquiry 23(2), 305–312.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam: 1979,Rules and Representations, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam: 1993, ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.),The View from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam: 1994, ‘Bare Phrase Structure’, inMIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam: 1995,The Minimalist Program, to appear, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik: 1993, ‘Principles and Parameters Theory’, in J. Jacobs et al. (eds.),Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 506–569.Google Scholar
  12. Chung, Sandra: 1982, ‘Unbounded Dependencies in Chamorro Grammar’,Linguistic Inquiry 13(1), 39–77.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, Chris: 1993,Topics in Ewe Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, Robert: 1979, ‘Variable Binding in Relative Clauses’, in F. Guenther and S. J. Schmidt (eds.),Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 131–169.Google Scholar
  15. Cormack, Annabel: 1984, ‘VP Anaphora: Variables and Scope’, in F. Landman and F. Veltman (eds.),Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Cresti, Diana: 1995, ‘Economy and the Scope of Amount Phrases’, to appear inProceedings of WCCFL 14. Google Scholar
  17. Cresti, Diana: in progress,Specific Indefinites, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Diesing, Molly: 1992,Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  19. Enç, Mürvit: 1986, ‘Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions’,Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 405–426.Google Scholar
  20. Fiengo, Robert and Robert May: 1994,Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  21. Fodor, Janet and Ivan Sag: 1982, ‘Referential and Quantificational Indefinites’,Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–398.Google Scholar
  22. Fodor, Jerry: 1983,Modularity of Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, Danny: forthcoming, ‘Condition C Effects in ACD’, to appear inMIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  24. Fox, Danny and Orin Percus: 1994, ‘On the Autonomy of the Computational System’, unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Fox, Danny and Orin Percus: in prep., ‘A Note on Existential Constructions’.Google Scholar
  26. Fox, Danny and Uli Sauerland: 1995, ‘Illusive Scope of Universal Quantifiers’, unpublished manuscript, MIT, to appear inProceedings of NELS 26. Google Scholar
  27. Golan, Yael: 1993, ‘Node Crossing Economy, Superiority and D-linking’, unpublished manuscript, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
  28. Goodall, Grant: 1987,Parallel Structures in Syntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Grimshaw, Jane: 1993, ‘Minimal Projections, Heads, and Optimality’, manuscript, to appear inLinguistic Inquiry. Google Scholar
  30. Heim, Irene: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  31. Heim, Irene: 1991, ‘Articles and Definiteness’, manuscript; published in German as ‘Artikel und Definitheit’, in A. V. Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.),Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  32. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer: 1994, Class Notes.Google Scholar
  33. Hendriks, Herman: 1993,Studied Flexibility: Categories and Types in Syntax and Semantics, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  34. Hintikka, Jakko: 1977, ‘Quantifiers in Natural Languages: Some Logical Problems’,Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 153–172.Google Scholar
  35. Hirschbühler, Paul: 1982, ‘VP-Deletion and Across-the Board Quantifier Scope’, in J. Pustejovsky and P. Sells (eds.),Proceedings of NELS 12, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 132–139.Google Scholar
  36. Hornstein, Norbert: 1994,LF: The Grammar of Logical Form from GB to Minimalism, unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  37. Jayaseelan, K. A.: 1990, ‘Incomplete VP Deletion and Gapping’,Linguistic Analysis 20, 64–81.Google Scholar
  38. Kamp, Hans: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk et al. (eds.),Formal Methods in the Study of Languages, Mathematical Center, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  39. Kayne, Richard: 1995,The Anti-Symmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  40. Kenedy, Christopher: 1995, ‘Antecedent Contained Deletion and the Syntax of Quantifiers’, unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  41. Kitahara, Hisatsugu: 1994, ‘Raising Quantifiers without Quantifier Raising’, unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  42. Koizumi, Masa: 1994, ‘Layered Specifiers’, in M. Gonzàlez (ed.),Proceedings of NELS 24, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 255–269.Google Scholar
  43. Kratzer, Angelika: 1995, ‘Scope or Pseudo Scope? Are There Wide Scope Indefinites?’, to appear in F. Ham and A. von Stechow (eds.),Proceedings ofRecent Developments in the Theory of Natural Language’, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  44. Lakoff, George: 1970, ‘Repartee’,Foundations of Language 6, 389–422.Google Scholar
  45. Lappin, Shalom: 1993, ‘Ellipsis Resolution at S-structure’, in A. J. Schafer (ed.),Proceedings of NELS 23, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 255–269.Google Scholar
  46. Larson, Richard: 1990, ‘Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff’,Linguistic Inquiry 21, 589–632.Google Scholar
  47. Lasnik, Howard: 1972,Analysis of Negation in English, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  48. Lasnik, Howard: 1993, ‘Lectures in Minimalist Syntax’, in U. Conn. Occ. Papers in Linguistics 1, distributed byMIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  49. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito: 1992,Move AAA, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  50. Ludlow, Peter and Steven Neale: 1991, ‘Indefinite Descriptions: In Defense of Russell’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 171–202.Google Scholar
  51. Marantz, Alec: 1994, ‘A Late Note on Late Insertion’, in Y.-S. Kim et al. (eds.),Explanation in Generative Grammar, Hankuk Publ. Co., Seoul, pp. 396–413.Google Scholar
  52. May, Robert: 1985,Logical Form, Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  53. May, Robert: 1988, ‘Ambiguities of Quantification’,Linguistic Inquiry 19, 118–135.Google Scholar
  54. Moltmann, Friederike: 1992,Coordination and Comparatives, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  55. Moltmann, Friederike and Anna Szabolcsi: 1994, ‘Scope Interaction with Pair-List Quantifiers’, in M. Gonzàles (ed.),Proceedings of NELS 24, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 381–395.Google Scholar
  56. Muadz, H.: 1991,Coordinate Structures: A Planar Representation, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
  57. Murasugi, Kumiko: 1992,Crossing and Nested Paths, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  58. Oka, T.: 1993,Minimalism in Syntactic Derivation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  59. Partee, Barbara H.: 1989, ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’,Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 25, pp. 342–365.Google Scholar
  60. Pesetsky, David: 1995,Zero Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  61. Pesetsky, David: in prep.,Syntax at the Edge: Optimality Effects in Sentence Grammar. Google Scholar
  62. Pica, Pier and William Snyder: 1994, ‘Weak Crossover, Scope, and Agreement in a Minimalist Framework’, to appear inProceedings of WCCFL 13. Google Scholar
  63. Poesio, Massimo and Alessandro Zucchi: 1992, ‘On Telescoping’, inProceedings of SALT 2, The Ohio State University, Columbus, pp. 347–366.Google Scholar
  64. Reinhart, Tanya: 1976,The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  65. Reinhart, Tanya: 1981, ‘A Second COMP Position’, inProceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, Estratto, Scuola Normale Superiore Di Pisa.Google Scholar
  66. Reinhart, Tanya: 1983,Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  67. Reinhart, Tanya: 1987, ‘Specific and Operator Binding’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.),The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 130–167.Google Scholar
  68. Reinhart, Tanya: 1991, ‘Non-Quantificational LF’, in A. Kasher (ed.),The Chomskian Turn. Google Scholar
  69. Reinhart Tanya: 1994, ‘WH-in-Situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program’,OTS Working Papers, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  70. Reinhart, Tanya: 1995a, ‘Quantifier Scope’, unpublished manuscript, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  71. Reinhart, Tanya: 1995b, ‘Scrambling and Focus’, unpublished manuscript, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  72. Roberts, Craige: 1987,Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  73. Rodman, Robert: 1976, ‘Scope Phenomena, ‘Movement Transformations’, and Relative Clauses’, in B. H. Partee (ed.),Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York, pp. 165–176.Google Scholar
  74. Rooth, Mats: 1992, ‘Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy’, in S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.),Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 29, IBM Germany, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  75. Rooth, Mats and Barbara H. Partee: 1983, ‘Conjunction, Type Ambiguity and Wide Scopeor’, in D. P. Flickinger, M. Macken, and N. Wiegard (eds.),Proceedings of WCCFL 1, Stanford University, pp. 353–362.Google Scholar
  76. Ruys, Eddy: 1993,The Scope of Indefinites, Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  77. Sag, Ivan: 1976,Deletion and Logical Form, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  78. Tancredi, Chris: 1992,Deletion, Deaccenting and Presupposition, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  79. Tomioka, Satoshi: 1995, ‘[Focus]F Restricts Scope: Quantifiers in VP Ellipsis’, to appear inProceedings of SALT. Google Scholar
  80. Tsai, Wei tien Dylan: 1994,On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  81. Ura, Hiroyuki: 1994, ‘Varieties of Raising and the Feature-Based Phrase Structure Theory’,MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7, Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  82. Williams, Edwin: 1977, ‘Discourse and Logical Form’,Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.Google Scholar
  83. Winter, Yoad: 1995, ‘On the Formalization of Choice Functions as Representing the Scope of Indefinities’, to appear inProceedings of ESSLLI 7 (Conference on Formal Grammar, Barcelona).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danny Fox
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations