Advertisement

Structural Asymmetry in Question/Quantifier Interactions

  • Asya AchimovaEmail author
  • Viviane Déprez
  • Julien Musolino
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 47)

Abstract

The interaction of universal quantifiers and wh-phrases in questions, such as Which class did every student take?, gives rise to structural ambiguities. The availability of pair-list answers (Mary took Syntax, and Jane took Semantics) to such questions reveals whether the quantifier can take wide scope over the wh. In this paper, we use an acceptability judgment task to test whether, as some theoretical accounts suggest (e.g. May 1985), the quantifier position affects the likelihood of an inverse scope reading for distributive quantifiers, such as every and each. We show that pair-list answers remain less available for questions with object quantifiers than for questions with subject quantifiers even when the quantifier is each (contra Beghelli 1997). At the same time, speakers find pair-list answers to questions with each more acceptable than to questions with every, confirming that the distributivity force of a quantifier also plays a role. We discuss how these findings fit into the existing analyses of quantifier scope in relation to quantifier semantics and discourse structure.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful for the valuable feedback we received at the Budapest Workshop on Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of Quantification.

References

  1. Agüero-Bautista, Calixto. 2001. Cyclicity and the Scope of wh-Phrases. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1989. Scope and Constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20 (2): 141–172.Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Syntax of Scope, vol. 21. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random Effects Structure for Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing: Keep it Maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68 (3): 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beghelli, Filippo. 1997. The Syntax of Distributivity and Pair-List Readings. In Ways of Scope Taking, 349–408, ed. Anna Szabolcsi. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beghelli, Filippo, and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of Each and Every. In Ways of Scope Taking, ed. Anna Szabolcsi, 71–107. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Jakub Dotlačil. 2015. Strategies for Scope Taking. Natural Language Semantics 23 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. Questions with Quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1: 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Déprez, Viviane. 1991. Economy and the That-t Effect. In Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, vol. 4, 74–87. California State University.Google Scholar
  10. Déprez, Viviane. 1994a. A Minimal Account of the That-t effect. In Paths Toward Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, ed. G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock and R. Zanuttini, 121–135. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Déprez, Viviane. 1994b. Questions with Floated Quantifiers. In Proceedings of the VIth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), ed. Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann, vol. 4, 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eilam, Aviad. 2011. Explorations in the Informational Component. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Dissertation.Google Scholar
  13. Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational Topics: A Scopal Treatement of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 86. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1986. Constituent Questions. Dordrecht: D. Riedel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1993. Wh-movement and Specificity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11 (1): 85–120.Google Scholar
  17. Frey, Werner. 2004. A Medial Topic Position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198 (565): 154–190.Google Scholar
  18. Gelman, Andrew, and Jennifer Hill. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Hierarchical/Multilevel Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gil, David. 1991. Universal Quantifiers: A Typological Study. EUROTYP Working Papers, vol. 7 12. Berlin: European Science Foundation, EUROTYP Programme.Google Scholar
  20. Groenendijk, Jeroen A.G. and Martin J.B. Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
  21. Jeffreys, Harold. 1961. Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kagan, Olga. 2006. Specificity as Speaker Identifiability. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language, ed. Beáta Gyuris, László Kálmán, Chris Piñoń and Károly Varasdy, vol. 9, 82–89. Budapest.Google Scholar
  23. Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into Question Acts. Natural Language Semantics 9 (1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Information Structure and Sentence Form: A Theory of Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents, vol. 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lambrecht, Knud, and Laura A. Michaelis. 1998. Sentence Accent in Information Questions: Default and Projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (5): 477–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language. In Subject and Topic, ed. Charles N Li , 457–589. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Musolino, Julien. 1998. Universal Grammar and the Acquisition of Semantic Knowledge: An Experimental Investigation into the Acquisition of Quantifier-Negation Interaction in English. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar
  29. Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and Categories. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
  30. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Philosophica 27 (1): 53–94.Google Scholar
  31. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface Strategies, vol. 45. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, Avoid f and Other Constraints on the Placement of Accent. Natural Language Semantics 7 (2): 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Pragmatics: Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, ed. P. Cole. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tunstall, Susanne. 1998. The Interpretation of Quantifiers: Semantics and Processing. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asya Achimova
    • 1
    Email author
  • Viviane Déprez
    • 2
    • 3
  • Julien Musolino
    • 4
  1. 1.Linguistics ProgramWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.L2C2, CNRSFrench Academy of SciencesLyonFrance
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations