Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 335–397 | Cite as

Quantifier Scope: How labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions

  • Tanya Reinhart
Article

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Choice Function Quantifier Scope 
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, D.: 1994, ‘The Scope of Indefinites’, Natural Language Semantics 2(2), 83–136.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. L.: 1970, ‘Notes on the Description of English Questions. The Role of an Abstract Question Morpheme’, Foundations of Language.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  4. Beghelli, F.: 1993, ‘A Minimalist Approach to Quantifier Scope’, Proceedings of NELS 23, GSLI, U Mass Amherst.Google Scholar
  5. Beghelli, F.: 1995, The Phrase Structure of Quantifier Scope, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  6. Beghelli, F., D. Ben Shalom and A. Szabolcsi: 1993, ‘When Do Subjects and Objects Exhibit a Branching Reading?’, WCCFL XII.Google Scholar
  7. Beghelli, F. and T. Stowell: 1997, ‘The Syntax of Distributivity and Negation’, in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 71–108.Google Scholar
  8. Ben-Shalom, D.: 1993, ‘Object Wide Scope and Semantic Trees’, In Lahiri (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 3, UCI.Google Scholar
  9. Bochvar, D. A.: 1939, ‘On a Three-Valued Logical Calculus and its Application to the Analysis of Contradictories’, Mate'mati Ca'skij Sbornik, Volume 4, Quoted in Susan Haak, Deviant Logic: Some Philosophical Issues, Cambridge University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1973, ‘Conditions on Transformations’, in S. Anderson and P. Kiparski (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N.: 1975, ‘Questions of Form and Interpretation’, Linguistic Analysis 1(1).Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N.: 1976: ‘Conditions on Rules of Grammar’, Linguistic Analysis 2(4). Reprinted in N. Chomsky, Essays on Form and Interpretation, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  14. Chung, S., W. Ladusaw, and J. McCloskey: 1994, ‘Sluicing and Logical Form’, Natural Language Semantics 3(3), 239–282.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, R.: 1979, ‘Variable Binding and Relative Clauses’, in Guenthner and Schmidt (eds.), pp. 131–170.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, R.: 1983, Quantification and Syntactic Theory, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Danon, G.: 1996, ‘The Syntax of Determiners in Hebrew’, M.A Thesis, Tel Aviv University, available at the URL; http://www.tau.ac.il/~danon/Thesis.html.Google Scholar
  18. van der Does, J.: 1992, Applied Quantifier Logics, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Dowty, D.: 1986, ‘A Note on Collective Predicates, Distributive Predicates and “all”’, in Marshall, Miller and Zhang (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Eastern State Conference on Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  20. Engdahl, E.: 1980, The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  21. Engdahl, E.: 1986, Constituent Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, G.: 1980, ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11(2), 337–362.Google Scholar
  23. Farkas, D.: 1981, ‘Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands’, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar
  24. Fox, D.: 1994, ‘Economy and Scope’, Natural Language Semantics 3(3), 283–341.Google Scholar
  25. Fodor, J. and I. Sag: 1982, ‘Referential and Quantificational Indefinites’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–398.Google Scholar
  26. Gil, D.: 1982, ‘Quantifier Scope, Linguistic Variation and Natural Language Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 421–472.Google Scholar
  27. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1982, ‘Semantic Analysis of wh-complements’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5(2), 175–234.Google Scholar
  28. Guenthner, F. and S. Schmidt (eds.): 1979, Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  29. Hamblin, C.: 1973, ‘Questions in Montague English’, Foundations of Language (10), 41–53. Reprinted in B. Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar, New York: Academic Press 1976.Google Scholar
  30. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Heim, I.: 1986, ‘Notes on Comparatives and Related Matters’, ms. MIT.Google Scholar
  32. Hendriks, H.: 1993, Studied Flexibility, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  33. Hilbert, D. and P. Bernays: 1939, Die Grundlagen der Mathematik II, second edition, reprint 1970, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  34. Higginbotham, J.: 1985, ‘On Semantics’, Linguistics Inqutry 16, 547–593.Google Scholar
  35. Higginbotham, J.: 1987, ‘Indefinites and Predication’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), 1987, pp. 41–80.Google Scholar
  36. Higginbotham, J.: 1992, ‘Interrogatives’, ms. MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Hirschbuhler, P.: 1982, ‘VP Deletion and Across the Board Quantifier Scope’, in Proceedings of NELS 12, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 132–139.Google Scholar
  38. Hornstein, N.: 1994, LF: The Grammar of Logial Form from GB to Minimalism, To appear, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. Huang, J.: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  40. Ioup, G. L.: 1975, The Treatment of Quantifier Scope in a Transformational Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
  41. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Karttunen, L.: 1977, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 1–44.Google Scholar
  43. Keenan, E.: 1987, ‘A Semantic Definition of “Indefinite NP”’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), 1987, pp. 109–150.Google Scholar
  44. Keenan, E. and A. Faltz: 1978, Logical Types for Natural Language, Working papers in Syntax and Semantics, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  45. Kempson, R. and A. Cormack: 1981, ‘Ambiguity and Quantification’, Linguistic and Philosophy 4, 259–309.Google Scholar
  46. Kratzer, A.: 1995, ‘Scope or Pseudo Scope? Are There Wide Scope Indefinites?’ To appear in F. Hamm and A. von Stechow (eds.), Proceedings of Recent Developments in the Theory of Natural Language, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  47. Lappin, S. and T. Reinhart: 1988, ‘Presuppositional Effects of Strong Determiners’, Linguistics 26, 1021–1037.Google Scholar
  48. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plural and Mass Terms: A Lattice Theoretical Approach’, in R. Bäuerle et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  49. May, R.: 1977, The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, reprinted by IUC.Google Scholar
  50. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  51. Moltmann, F. and A. Szabolcsi: 1994, ‘Scope Interactions with Pair-List Quantifiers’, Proceedings of NELS 24.Google Scholar
  52. Pesetsky, D.: 1982, Paths and Categories, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  53. Pesetsky, D.: 1987, ‘Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.).Google Scholar
  54. Reinhart, T.: 1976, The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Distributed by MITWPL.Google Scholar
  55. Reinhart, T.: 1979, ‘Syntactic Domains for Semantic Rules’, in Guenthner and Schmidt (eds.).Google Scholar
  56. Reinhart, T.: 1983, Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, Croom-Helm, Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Reinhart, T.: 1986, ‘On the Interpretation of ‘Donkey’ Sentences’, in E.C. Traugott et al. (eds.), On Conditionals, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Reinhart, T.: 1987, ‘Specifier and Operator Binding’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds).Google Scholar
  59. Reinhart, T.: 1991, ‘Elliptic Conjunctions: Non Quantificational LF’, in A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Reinhart, T.: 1992, ‘Wh-in-situ: An Apparent Paradox’, in P. Dekker et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eight Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  61. Reinhart, T.: 1993, ‘Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program’, Lecture at the Utrecht Linguistic Colloquium, distributed by OTS Working Papers, 1994, TL–94–003. To appear in Natural Language Semantics.Google Scholar
  62. Reinhart, T.: 1995, Interface Strategies, OTS working papers, TL–95–002. A revised version will appear in MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Reuland, E. and A. ter Meulen (eds.): 1987, The Representation of (In)definites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  64. Rodman, R.: 1976, 'scope Phenomena, Movement “Transformations'”, and Relative Clauses', in B. Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  65. Roberts, C.: 1987, Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  66. Ross, J.R.: 1969, ‘Guess Who’, in R. Binnick et al. (eds.) CLS 5, Proceedings of the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois. pp. 252–286.Google Scholar
  67. Ruys, E.: 1992, The Scope of Indefinites, Ph.D., Utrecht University, published in the OTS Dissertation Series, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  68. Ruys, E.: 1995, ‘Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon’, ms. University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  69. Sag, I.: 1976, Deletion and Logical Form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  70. Scha, R.: 1981, ‘Distributive, Collective, and Cumulative Predication’, in J. Groenendijk et al. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Center, Amsterdam, pp. 485–512.Google Scholar
  71. Strawson, P.: 1964, ‘Identifying Reference and Truth Values’, Theoria, vol. 30. Reprinted in P. Strawson, Logico Linguistic Papers, Methuen, London (1974), and in D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  72. Szabolcsi, A.: 1995, ‘On Modes of Operation’, in Paul Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  73. Szabolcsi, A.: 1997, ‘Strategies for Scope Taking’, in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  74. Szabolcsi, A.: (ed.), 1997, Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  75. Verkuyl, H. J.: 1988, ‘Aspectual Asymmetry and Quantification’, in V. Ehrich and H. Vater (eds.), Temporalsemantik: Beitrage zur Linguistik der Zeitreferenz, Tubingen, pp. 220–259.Google Scholar
  76. Williams, E. (1977), ‘Discourse and Logical Form’, Linguistic Inqutry 8(1).Google Scholar
  77. Williams, E.: 1986, ‘A Reassignment of the Functions of LF’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 265–299.Google Scholar
  78. Winter, Y.: 1995, ‘On the Formalization of Choice-Functions as Representing the Scope of Indefinites’, in G. V. Morril and R. T. Oehrle (eds.), Formal Grammar, Proceedings of the Conference of the European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  79. Winter, Y.: 1997, ‘Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4), 399–466 (this issue).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanya Reinhart
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics OTSUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations