Can DP Be a Scope Island?
- 429 Downloads
Sauerland  uses data from inverse linking—cf. —to motivate quantifier raising (QR) out of DP, proposing to derive Larson’s generalization—cf. – regarding the scopal integrity of DP via an Economy-based constraint on QR (cf. ).
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.
KeywordsBaseball Player Double Object Scope Reading Bare Plural Group Interpretation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.May, R.: The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.d. thesis. MIT Press, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
- 3.Larson, R.K.: Quantifying into NP. Ms. MIT, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
- 6.May, R.: Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
- 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.Rooth, M.: Association with Focus. Ph.d. thesis, UMass, Amherst (1985)Google Scholar
- 10.Richards, N.: What moves where when in which language? Ph.d. thesis, MIT (1997)Google Scholar
- 11.Sauerland, U.: Syntactic Economy and Quantifier Raising. Ms., Universität Tübingen (2000)Google Scholar
- 12.Charlow, S.: Inverse linking, Superiority, and QR. Ms., New York University (2009)Google Scholar
- 13.Heim, I., Kratzer, A.: Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 21.Farkas, D.: Evaluation indices and scope. In: Szabolcsi, A. (ed.) Ways of Scope Taking, pp. 183–215. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
- 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