Skip to main content

The scope of even and quantifier raising

Abstract

This paper addresses the question of whether the preverbal even (VP-even) embedded in a nonfinite clause can take wide scope (e.g., Bill refused to even drink WATER). The paper presents novel evidence for wide scope VP-even that is independent of the presuppositions of even. The evidence is based on examples of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), where embedded VP-even associates with a nominal constituent (or part of it) that raises out of the embedded clause via quantifier raising. Assuming that even must c-command the focus that it associates with, the case at issue forces VP-even to have wide scope, and further shows that VP-even in NPI-licensing contexts is not necessarily an NPI.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Beaver David (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bouton, Lawrence (1970) Antecedent-contained proforms. In Proceedings of CLS 6, 154-167. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago

  3. Büring Daniel, Katharina Hartmann (2001) The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 229–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chierchia Gennaro. (2004) Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In: Belletti A (eds) Structures and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 39–65

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chomsky Noam (1976) Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–350

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fiengo Robert, Robert May (1994) Indices and identity. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  7. Geurts Bart, Robvan der Sandt (2004) Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Giannakidou Anastasia (2007) The landscape of EVEN items. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 39–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Guerzoni, Elena. 2003. Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  10. Guerzoni Elena (2006) Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: Towards a unified account of intervention. Natural Language Semantics 14: 359–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Heim, Irene (1983) On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, 114–125. CSLI Publications, Stanford

  12. Heim Irene (1984) A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In: Jones C., Sells P (eds) Proceedings of NELS 14. GLSA Publications, Amherst, pp 98–107

    Google Scholar 

  13. Herburger Elena (2003) A note on Spanish ni siquiera, even, and the analysis of NPIs. Probus 15: 237–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoeksema Jack, Hotze Rullmann (2001) Scalarity and polarity: A study of scalar adverbs as polarity items. In: Hoeksema J., Rullmann H., Sanchez-Valencia V., Wouden T (eds) Perspectives on negation and polarity items. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 129–171

    Google Scholar 

  15. Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.

  16. Jackendoff Ray (1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kadmon Nirit (2001) Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  18. Karttunen Lauri (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–194

    Google Scholar 

  19. Karttunen Lauri, Stanley Peters (1979) Conventional implicature. In: Oh C.K., Dinneen D.A (eds) Syntax and semantics 11: Presuppositions. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–55

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kempson Ruth M (1975) Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kennedy Christopher (1997) Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 662–288

    Google Scholar 

  22. King Jeffrey (2001) Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  23. König Ekkehard (1991) The meaning of focus particles. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Krifka Manfred (1991) A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In: Jacobs J (eds) Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Sonderheft der Linguistischen Berichte. Opladen, Westdentscher Verlag, pp 17–53

    Google Scholar 

  25. Krifka Manfred (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 1–49

    Google Scholar 

  26. Krifka Manfred (2006) Association with focus phrases. In: Molnar V., Winkler S (eds) The architecture of focus. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 105–136

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Lahiri Utpal (1998) Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lahiri, Utpal. 2006. Scope, presuppositions and dimensions of meaning: Some observations on scalar additive particles in English, Hindi and Spanish. Handout for Sinn und Bedeutung 11. Universitat Pompeu-Fabra, Barcelona.

  29. Larson Richard, Robert May (1990) Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 103–122

    Google Scholar 

  30. May Robert (1985) Logical form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  31. Merchant Jason (2000) Antecedent-contained deletion in negative polarity items. Syntax 3: 144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Numata Yoshiko (1992) ‘Mo’, ‘dake’, ‘sae’, etc.—toritate [‘Also’, ‘only’, ‘even’, etc.—emphasizing]. Kuroshio, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rooth, Mats 1985. Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  34. Rooth Mats (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rullmann, Hotze. 1997. Even, polarity, and scope. In Papers in experimental and theoretical linguistics, ed. M. Gibson, G. Wiebe, and G. Libben, vol. 4, 40–64. Edmonton: University of Alberta.

  36. Rullmann Hotze (2003) Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics 20: 329–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rullmann, Hotze. 2007. What does even even mean? Handout to a talk given at the University of Calgary.

  38. Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  39. Schwarz Bernhard (2005) Scalar additive particles in negative contexts. Natural Language Semantics 13: 125–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. von Stechow Arnim (1991) Current issues in the theory of focus. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D (eds) Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 804–825

    Google Scholar 

  41. Taglicht Josef (1984) Message and emphasis: On focus and scope in English. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wagner Michael (2006) Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14: 297–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wilkinson Karina (1996) The scope of even. Natural Language Semantics 4: 193–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimiko Nakanishi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nakanishi, K. The scope of even and quantifier raising. Nat Lang Semantics 20, 115–136 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9077-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Focus
  • Scope
  • Scope fixing
  • Quantifier raising
  • Antecedent-contained deletion
  • Negative polarity
  • Presupposition