Article

Quantifiers with Split Scope

Jae-Il Yeom 1 ,
Author Information & Copyright
1Hongik University
Corresponding Author: E-mail: jiyeom@hongik.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2021 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Sep 13, 2021 ; Revised: Dec 01, 2021 ; Accepted: Dec 02, 2021

Published Online: Dec 31, 2021

ABSTRACT

Quantifiers in intensional contexts cause difficulty in explaining their scope phenomena in the standard linguistics. A strong quantifier has narrower scope than an intensional operator, but the nominal predicate has the de re interpretation, and an indefinite can have wide scope over an intensional operator over a syntactic island. In the paper, I propose a new way of interpreting a strong quantifier, assuming that a strong quantifier triggers the presupposition that there is a non-empty set determined by the nominal predicate. A presupposition tends to be projected over an intensional operator. This gives the effect that the nominal predicate gets the de re interpretation. On the other hand, the nuclear scope of the quantifier, together with the nominal predicate, determines another set in the local context, and the quantificational force is determined by the relation of the two sets. A weak quantifier is ambiguous, and it can be interpreted as triggering a presupposition, as a strong quantifier does. A quantifier in this use can be analyzed in the same way, but it leads to the effect that the quantifier, not just the nominal predicate, has scope over an intensional operator because of a semantic property of the quantifier. This new way of interpreting a quantifier is independently motivated by the observation that the two sets are referred to at a later discourse.

Keywords: quantifier; intensional context; split scope; presupposition

References

1.

Abusch, D. (1994). The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 83-135 .

2.

Charlow, S. (2019). The scope of alternatives: indefiniteness and islands. Linguistics and Philosophy, 43, 427-472 .

3.

Corblin, F. (1996). Quantification et anaphore discursive: la reference aux complementaires, Langages (Vol. 1 No. 23, pp. 51-74), Larousse, Paris .

4.

Cresswell, M. J. (1990). Entities and Indices. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers .

5.

Cresti, D. (1995). Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 79-122 .

6.

Von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2011). Intensional semantics. MIT. Lecture notes for Advanced Semantics. MIT .

7.

Farkas, D. (1981). Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In R. Hendrick, C. Masek, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Papers from the 17th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (No. 17, pp. 59-66). University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society .

8.

Farkas, D. (1997). Evaluation indices and scope. In A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 183-215). Dordrecht: Kluwer .

9.

Fodor, J. D. (1970). The linguistic description of opaque contents (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology .

10.

Fodor, J. D., & Ivan S. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355-398 .

11.

Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, & M. Westcoat (eds.), Second annual west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 114-126). Stanford University .

12.

Hornstein, N. (1995). Logical form: From GB to minimalism, Oxford: Blackwell .

13.

Huang, J. (1995). Logical form. In G. Webelhuth (ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory, Oxford: Blackwell .

14.

Huang, C.-T. James. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology .

15.

Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht .

16.

Keine, S., & Ethan P. (2018). Interpreting long scrambling in Hindi-Urdu. NELS (Vol. 2, pp. 105-118) .

17.

Keshet, E. (2008). Good intensions: Paving two roads to a theory of the De re/De dicto distinction (Ph.D. thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA .

18.

Keshet, E. (2010). Situation economy. Natural Language Semantics, 18 .

19.

Keshet, E. (2011). Split intensionality: a new scope theory of de re and de dicto. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 251-283 .

20.

Lechner, W. (2013). Diagnosing covert movement: The Duke of York and reconstruction. In L. Cheng & N. Corver (Eds.), Diagnosing syntax (pp. 158-189). Oxford: Oxford University Press .

21.

Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell .

22.

Ludlow, P., & Stephen, N. (1991). Indefinite descriptions: In defense of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 171-202 .

23.

May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its structure and derivation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

24.

Milsark, G. (1977). Towards the explanation of certain peculiarities of existential sentences in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1-29 .

25.

Moxey, L., & Sanford, A. (1996). Choosing the right quantifier: Usage in the context of communication, In T. Givon (ed.), Conversation: Cultural, cognitive and communicative perspectives (pp. 207-231). Amsterdam: J Benjamins .

26.

Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to Natural Language, 49, 221-242 .

27.

Musan, R. (1995). On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases (Ph.D. thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge .

28.

Nouwen, R. (2003). Complement anaphora and interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 20, 73-113 .

29.

Percus, O. (2000). Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 173-229 .

30.

Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335-397 .

31.

Reinhart, T. (1998). Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 29-56 .

32.

Ruys, E. (1992). The scope of indefinites (Doctoral dissertation). University of Utrecht Ph.D. thesis .

33.

van der Sandt, Rob. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9, 333-377 .

34.

Schwarz, F. (2012). Situation pronouns in determiner phrases. Natural Language Semantics, 20, 431-475 .

35.

Sternefeld, W. (2001). Semantic vs. syntactic reconstruction. In C. Rohrer, A. Roßdeutscher, & H. Kamp (Eds.), Linguistic form and its computation (pp. 145-182). Stanford: CSLI Publications .

36.

Winter, Y. (1997). Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 399-467 .

37.

Yeom, Jae-Il. (1998). A presuppositional analysis of specific indefinites: Common grounds as structured information states. New York: Garland .