Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Strategies of Quantification$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Kook-Hee Gil, Stephen Harlow, and George Tsoulas

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199692439

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2013

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692439.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 17 December 2018

A Cross‐Linguistic Approach to Mysterious Scope Facts

A Cross‐Linguistic Approach to Mysterious Scope Facts

Structures and Interpretation

(p.173) 9 A Cross‐Linguistic Approach to Mysterious Scope Facts
Strategies of Quantification

Yukiko Ueda

Oxford University Press

This chapter explores relative scope phenomena cross‐linguistically. First, we observe the facts that the head licensing each QP is closely related to the possibility of creating inverse scope readings in English, Greek/Catalan, and Japanese and further point out that the relative scope interpretation does not rely on whether the languages undergo Quantifier Raising (henceforth QR) or not. The facts observed in the three languages lead us to a new scope calculation system, named a phase‐based approach, and provide further evidence for the purely syntactic scope system. The system treats inverse scope calculation as a feature‐matching operation between more than one interpretable feature related to quantification. We call this matching operation F‐quant matching. The operation is restricted by syntactic unit phases and is subject to the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Given the matching operation, scope interpretation can be determined in the following two ways: (i) c‐command relation between QPs at the end of a derivation D, namely, the LF‐input structure, (ii) through F‐quant matching in a derivation D. As a result, if (i) and (ii) predict different scope relations, then the sentence is ambiguous. If (i) and (ii) predict the same scope relation, then the sentence is unambiguous. Different scope phenomena between languages follow from a currently acknowledged basic apparatus for structure building, match, and the PIC, without any other special implement.

Keywords:   phases, scope, quantifier raising, Japanese, scope ambiguity

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .