Advertisement

Introduction

Sauerland [1] uses data from inverse linking—cf. [2]—to motivate quantifier raising (QR) out of DP, proposing to derive Larson’s generalization—cf. [3]– regarding the scopal integrity of DP via an Economy-based constraint on QR (cf. [4]).

This squib is in four parts. I first lay out Sauerland’s three arguments for QR out of DP. I present (a slightly modified version of) his mechanism for constraining QR. I show that it both over- and under- generates. I conclude by arguing that the readings Sauerland uses to motivate his account don’t result from an islandrespecting QR mechanism. In short, each of the cases Sauerland considers involve DPs with ”special” scopal properties: plural demonstrative DPs, bare plural DPs, and antecedent-contained deletion (ACD)-hosting DPs. The argument that apparent wide-scope readings of plural demonstratives are only apparent is motivated using (so far as I know) new data from English, while the latter two cases receive independent motivation from the literature. The conclusion is that the question posed in the title of this paper can be answered in the affirmative.

Keywords

Baseball Player Double Object Scope Reading Bare Plural Group Interpretation 
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. 1.
    Sauerland, U.: DP Is Not a Scope Island. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2), 303–314 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    May, R.: The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.d. thesis. MIT Press, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larson, R.K.: Quantifying into NP. Ms. MIT, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruening, B.: QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2), 233–273 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heim, I.: Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    May, R.: Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, C.T.J.: Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Garland, New York (1998) (Ph.d. thesis, MIT, 1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rooth, M.: Association with Focus. Ph.d. thesis, UMass, Amherst (1985)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Büring, D.: Crossover Situations. Natural Language Semantics 12(1), 23–62 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richards, N.: What moves where when in which language? Ph.d. thesis, MIT (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sauerland, U.: Syntactic Economy and Quantifier Raising. Ms., Universität Tübingen (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charlow, S.: Inverse linking, Superiority, and QR. Ms., New York University (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heim, I., Kratzer, A.: Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Larson, R.K., den Dikken, M., Ludlow, P.: Intensional Transitive Verbs and Abstract Clausal Complementation. Ms., SUNY at Stony Brook, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Merchant, J.: Antecedent-contained deletion in negative polarity items. Syntax 3(2), 144–150 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chierchia, G.: Reference to Kinds across Languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Magri, G.: Constraints on the readings of bare plural subjects of individual-level predicates: syntax or semantics? In: Bateman, L., Ussery, C. (eds.) Proceedings from NELS35, vol. I, pp. 391–402. GLSA Publications, Amherst (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    von Fintel, K., Iatridou, S.: Epistemic Containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34(2), 173–198 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beghelli, F., Stowell, T.: Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and every. In: Szabolcsi, A. (ed.) Ways of Scope Taking, pp. 71–109. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larson, R.K.: Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21(4), 589–632 (1990)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farkas, D.: Evaluation indices and scope. In: Szabolcsi, A. (ed.) Ways of Scope Taking, pp. 183–215. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keshet, E.: Good Intensions: Paving Two Roads to a Theory of the De re/De dicto Distinction. Ph.d. thesis, MIT (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Charlow
    • 1
  1. 1.New York University 

Personalised recommendations