Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 541–597 | Cite as

Quantificational Arguments in Temporal Adjunct Clauses

  • Ron Artstein


Quantificational arguments can take scope outside of temporal adjunct clauses, in an apparent violation of locality restrictions: the sentence few secretaries cried after each executive resigned allows the quantificational NP each executive to take scope above few secretaries. I show how this scope relation is the result of local operations: the adjunct clause is a temporal generalized quantifier which takes scope over the main clause (Pratt and Francez, Linguistic and Philosophy 24(2), 187–222. [2001]), and within the adjunct clause, the quantificational argument takes scope above the implicit determiner which forms the temporal generalized quantifier. The paper explores various relations among quantificational arguments across clause boundaries, including temporal clauses that are modified internally by a temporal adverbial and temporal clauses with embedded sentential complements.


Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Generalize Quantifier Locality Restriction Local Operation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abusch, D. 1993–1994‘The Scope of Indefinites’Natural Language Semantics283135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abusch, D., Rooth, M. 1990‘Temporal Adverbs and the English Perfect’Carter, J.Déchaine, R.-M.Philip, B.Sherer, T. eds. Proceedings of NELS 20GLSAAmherst, MA115Vol. 1Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C.: 2004, The Structure and Real-Time Comprehension of Quantifier Scope Ambiguity, PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  4. Barker, C.: 2004, ‘Parasitic Scope’. Manuscript, USCD.Google Scholar
  5. Büring, D. 1997a‘The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy’Linguistics and Philosophy20175194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Büring, D. 1997bThe Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent (Routledge Studies in German Linguistics 3)RoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Büring, D. 1999‘Topic’Bosch, P.Sandt, R. eds. Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational PerspectivesCambridge University PressCambridge142165Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, G. N. 1979‘Generics and Atemporal WhenLinguistics and Philosophy34998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson, G. N. 1987‘Same and Different: Some Consequences for Syntax and Semantics’Linguistics and Philosophy10531565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, R. 1983Quantification and Syntactic Theory (Synthese Language Library 21)D. ReidelDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Cresswell, M. J. 1977‘Interval Semantics and Logical Words’Rohrer, C. eds. On the Logical Analysis of Tense and AspectGunter NarrTübingen729Google Scholar
  12. Diesing, M. 1992Indefinites (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 20)MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowty, D. R. 1979Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ (Synthese Language Library 7)D. ReidelDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. Dowty, D. R. 1982‘Tenses, Time Adverbs, and Compositional Semantic Theory’Linguistics and Philosophy52355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Enç, M. 1986‘Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions’Linguistics and Philosophy9405426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farkas, D. F., Sugioka, Y. 1983‘Restrictive If/When Clauses’Linguistics and Philosophy6225258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fodor, J. D., Sag, I. A. 1982‘Referential and Quantificational Indefinites’Linguistics and Philosophy5355398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Francez, N. and M. Steedman: to appear, ‘Categorial Grammar and the Semantics of Indexical Preposition Phrases’, Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  19. Gallin, D. 1975Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic, With Applications to Montague Semantics (North-Holland Mathematics Studies 19)North-HollandAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Geis, M. 1970Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in EnglishMITCambridge, MAPhD dissertationGoogle Scholar
  21. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. 1982‘Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements’Linguistics and Philosophy5175233Google Scholar
  22. Hitzeman, J. 1997‘Semantic Partition and the Ambiguity of Sentences Containing Temporal Adverbials’Natural Language Semantics587100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang, C.-T. J. 1982Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of GrammarMITCambridge, MAPhD dissertationGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamp, H., Reyle, U. 1993From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 42)KluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Keenan, E. L., Stavi, J. 1986‘A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners’Linguistics and Philosophy9253326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kratzer, A. 1998‘Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites?’Rothstein, S. eds. Events and GrammarKluwerDordrecht163196Google Scholar
  27. Larson, R. K. 1990‘Extraction and Multiple Selection in PP’The Linguistic Review7169182Google Scholar
  28. Liu, F.-h.: 1990, Scope Dependency in English and Chinese, PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  29. May, R. 1985Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 12)MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Montague, R. 1973‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’Hintikka, J.Moravcsik, J.Suppes, P. eds. Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and SemanticsD. ReidelDordrecht221242Reprinted in (Montague, 1974), ch. 8, pp. 247–270Google Scholar
  31. Montague, R. 1974Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard MontagueYale University PressNew Haven, CTEdited and with an introduction by Richmond H. ThomasonGoogle Scholar
  32. Partee, B. H. 1973‘Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English’The Journal of Philosophy70601609Google Scholar
  33. Partee, B.H., Rooth, M. 1983‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’Bäuerle, R.Schwarze, C.von Stechow, A eds. Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Languagede GruyterBerlin361383Google Scholar
  34. Pratt, I. and N. Francez: 1997, ‘On the Semantics of Temporal Prepositions and Preposition Phrases’, Technical Report UMCS-97-4-2, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester. .
  35. Pratt, I., Francez, N. 2001‘Temporal Prepositions and Temporal Generalized Quantifiers’Linguistics and Philosophy24187222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reinhart, T. 1997‘Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Functions’Linguistics and Philosophy20335397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothstein, S. 1995‘Adverbial Quantification over Events’Natural Language Semantics3131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steedman, M. 1996Surface Structure and Interpretation (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 30)MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Steedman, M. 2000The Syntactic ProcessMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  40. Steedman, M.: 2004, ‘Surface-compositional Scope-Alternation Without Existential Quantifiers’. Manuscript, University of Edinburgh, draft 5.0, .
  41. Stump, G. T. 1985The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions (Synthese Language Library 25)D. ReidelDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  42. Szabolcsi, A. eds. 1997Ways of Scope Taking (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 65)KluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  43. Szabolcsi, A., Zwarts, F. 1993‘Weak Islands and an Algebraic Semantics for Scope Taking’Natural Language Semantics1235284Reprinted in (Szabolcsi, 1997), ch. 7, 217–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stechow, A. 2002‘Temporal Prepositional Phrases with Quantifiers: Some Additions to Pratt and Francez (2001)’Linguistics and Philosophy25755800CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of EssexWivenhoe ParkUK

Personalised recommendations