Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Strategies for scope taking

Article

Abstract

This squib reports the results of two experimental studies, a binary choice and a self-paced reading study, that provide strong support for the hypothesis in Tunstall (PhD thesis, 1998) that the distinct scopal properties of each and every are at least to some extent the consequence of an event-differentiation requirement contributed by each (Tunstall herself conducted an experiment that did not reveal the predicted effect). However, we also show that the emerging picture is more complex than Tunstall suggests: English speakers seem to fall into at least three groups regarding the scopal properties of each and every.

Keywords

Event differentiation Quantifier scope Experimental semantics Gaussian mixture models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, R. 2008. Pocket Fowler’s modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann G., Steedman M. (1988) Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30: 191–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. 2004. The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. PhD thesis, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  4. Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H. J. (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68: 255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, D., M. Maechler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–6.Google Scholar
  6. Beghelli, F., and T. Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolcsi, 71–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Carden G. (1970) A note on conflicting idiolects. Linguistic Inquiry 1(3): 281–290Google Scholar
  8. Carlson G. (1984) On the role of thematic roles in linguistic theory. Linguistics 22: 259–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crain, S., and M. Steedman. 1985. On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives, ed. L. K. David Dowty and A. Zwicky, 320–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dowty, D. R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Fodor, J. D. 1982. The mental representation of quantifiers. In Processes, beliefs and questions, ed. S. Peters and E. Saarinen, 129–164. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  12. Gelman, A., and J. Hill. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models (Analytical methods for social research). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gil D. (1982) Quantifier scope, linguistic variation, and natural language semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(4): 421–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hackl M., Koster-Hale J., Varvoutis J. (2012) Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics 29(2): 1–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hovav, M. R., and B. Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. M. Butt and W. Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  16. Ioup, G. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. In Syntax and semantics, ed. J. Kimball, vol. 4, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Just M. A., Carpenter P. A., Woolley J. D. (1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111(2): 228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kratzer, A. 2005. Building resultatives. In Event arguments: Foundations and applications, ed. C. Maienborn and A. Wöllstein-Leisten, 177–212. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics. In Semantics and contextual expressions, ed. R. Bartsch, J. van Bentham, and P. van Emde Boas. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  20. Kroch, A. 1974. The semantics of scope in English. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Kurtzman H. S., MacDonald M. C. (1993) Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48: 243–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landman, F. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Plummer, M. 2013. rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package version 3–10.Google Scholar
  24. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pylkkänen, L., and B. McElree. 2006. The syntax–semantic interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. M. Traxler and M. A. Gernsbacher, 537–577. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  27. Rayner K. (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124: 372–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Trueswell J., Tanenhaus M., Garnsey S. (1994) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33: 285–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tunstall, S. 1998. The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  31. VanLehn, K. A. 1978. Determining the scope of English quantifiers. Technical Report. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  32. Vendler, Z. 1962. Each and every, any and all. Mind 71(282): 145–160.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UC Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations