Can DP Be a Scope Island?

Charlow, Simon

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14729-6_1

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first approach runs into the problem of not being able to rule out cases of scope-splitting (i.e.,Larson's Generalization). As noted inCharlow (2010),Sauerland (2005), who assumes that the embedded QP must raise out of the embedding QP and attach at sentence level for interpretability reasons, also faces the problem of not being able to derive the non-inversely linked interpretation. Finally,Larson (1985) andMay & Bale (2005) lack a discussion of an explicit method for semantic interpretation of complex quantifiers their accounts depend on; the latter, however, is proposed in Kobele (2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifier Scope in Russian

Antonyuk

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents certain quantifier scope ambiguities in Russian and argues that these are derived by means of a covert syntactic movement operation, Quantifier Raising (QR). By doing so, it argues against the popular "frozen scope" view of Russian (Ionin 2003) by showing that optional, non-local QR past vP level must be available in the language in exactly the contexts where it is available in English. Syntactic evidence for the parallelism comes from Inverse Linking, Antecedent Contained Deletion and other contexts that have been argued to point to the existence of QR in English. Additionally, evidence for the availability of subject Reconstruction for scope in Russian (contra Ionin 2003) strongly suggests that the mechanism deriving ambiguity in basic SVO sentences in Russian must involve subject Reconstruction plus object QR to vP, exactly as has been argued to be necessary for English in Johnson (2000; 2001). The conclusion that Russian possesses QR with the same properties known from English suggests that the availability of QR in certain languages or certain constructions should not be tied to the unavailability of Scrambling since Russian also exhibits Scrambling. This conclusion thus carries important implications for other languages still currently taken to be similarly scope frozen due to the availability of Scrambling.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifier Scope in Russian

Antonyuk

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 Sauerland (2005) disputes this, but his arguments are addressed and countered by Charlow (2010 On this account, then, the crucial difference between VP-ellipsis and sluicing on this account is that VP- …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic identity, Parallelism and accommodated antecedents

Thoms

2015

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyses of the ellipsis identity condition must account for the fact that some syntactic mismatches between an 4 ellipsis site E and its antecedent A are possible while others are not. Previous accounts have suggested that the 5 relevant distinction is between different kinds of heads, such that some heads in the ellipsis site may mismatch while 6 others may not, and they have dealt with this sensitivity to a set of "special heads" with a built-for-purpose syntactic 7 identity condition which holds over and above semantic identity to constrain ellipsis. In this article I argue against 8 this approach and pursue an alternative which holds that identity is syntactic but "loose" in a precisely defined way. 9I show that the relevant generalization that accounts for syntactic identity effects in sluicing and VP-ellipsis-like 10 constructions concerns the position of variables in the antecedent, rather than the feature content of syntactic heads. 11I propose an implementation of syntactic identity which allows for the accommodation of additional antecedents, 12 with these being derived by a grammatical algorithm for generating alternatives, and I show that this implementation 13 derives the right kinds of looseness while restricting mismatches with respect to the position of variables, thus deriving 14 both the tolerable and intolerable mismatches between E and A without recourse to a specific condition regulating the 15 content of special heads. Much work on the ellipsis identity condition has revolved around the analysis of syntactic mismatches 20 between the ellipsis site E and its antecedent A. These fall into two broad categories: tolerable mismatches, 21 and intolerable mismatches. The existence of tolerable mismatches indicate that the identity condition 22 cannot be one of strict isomorphism between E and A, but rather something looser, and they have been used 23 by some (e.g. Merchant 2001, Merchant 2005, Potsdam 2007, Thoms 2013 to argue in favour of a strictly 24 semantic formulation of the identity condition, which allows the relevant differences in syntactic form. 26(1) a. I remember meeting him, but I don't remember when I met him. 27b. Decorating for the holidays is easy if you know how to decorate for the holidays. 28However, recent work (e.g. Chung 2013, Merchant 2013b, Saab to appear) has concentrated on demonstrat- 29ing the existence of intolerable mismatches: that is, mismatches between E and A which seem to cause the 30 identity condition to fail (attested by the ungrammaticality of certain construals of ellipses). The intolera-31 ble mismatches in question are of significance because they seem not to be ruled out by semantic identity 32 * For discussion and feedback I thank Matt Barros, Patrick Elliott, Anikó Liptḱ, Andrés Saab and the audience at the Leiden "identity in ellipsis" workshop, as well as four reviewers whose insightful comments improved this paper substantially. For help with data I thank Gillebrde MacMillan and all the staff and other members of the Gaelic-speaking community ...

show abstract

“… Sauerland () challenges this on empirical grounds, arguing that there are other cases of QR out of DP that cannot be handled by the mechanisms proposed by Larson () and others. Sauerland's proposals are challenged by Charlow (), who shows that Sauerland's arguments are problematic and that the analysis in terms of Superiority is flawed. See also Shan & Barker . Relatedly, an anonymous reviewer points out that the claim that QR cannot extract from DPs is challenged by data from antecedent‐contained deletion (ACD) reported by Kennedy (), where a QR‐based approach to ACD resolution is committed to an analysis in which QR escapes the DP.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pseudogapping, Parallelism, and the Scope of Focus

Thoms

2016

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I defend a particular analysis of pseudogapping in which the focused remnant is moved by leftward A 0 -movement (Jayaseelan 2002, Gengel 2013. Noting the superficial similarity between pseudogapping and stripping, I show that pseudogapping is much more restricted than we would expect if it were just another version of stripping, failing to apply across clause boundaries and allowing a much narrower range of remnants. I provide an analysis of these restrictions in terms of Parallelism, arguing that the difference between pseudogapping and stripping is keyed to the different ways in which their correlates may take scope. The proposal accounts for the exceptional behavior of pseudogapping in comparatives, and it leads us to the conclusion that there exists a set of movement operations that occur only in the context of ellipsis.

show abstract

Can DP Be a Scope Island?

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

Quantifier Scope in Russian

Quantifier Scope in Russian

Syntactic identity, Parallelism and accommodated antecedents

Pseudogapping, Parallelism, and the Scope of Focus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About