Scope shift: an interface repair strategy
Tanya Reinhart
This is section 2.7 from Interface strategies: Reference-set computation, to appear in
MIT Press.
.1.7Minimize Interpretative Options .............................................................. 1
.1.7Applying the illicit QR as a repair strategy. .......................................... 4
.1.7Complexity factors - the size of the reference set .............................. 11
[Note: In the previous sections on QR, I argued that it is, in fact, a much more restricted
operation than standardly assumed. In the clearest instances of what appears as scope
outside of the c-command overt domain, the relevant NP is indefinite (or an existential
quantifier). However, these cases are captured, independently of QR, by a choicefunction mechanism, proposed in Reinhart (1997), which interprets them in situ, so QR
does not apply to generate the apparent scope shift.. Nevertheless, there are cases of
genuine scope shift, for which we still need QR. These are the subject of the present
section.]
7.1. Minimize Interpretative Options
Though QR can be viewed just as a standard instance of a movement operation, it still
poses conceptual problems. As I mentioned throughout this chapter, the problems were
always there, but they are more acutely noticeable in the framework of the minimalist
program. As we saw in chapter 1, the original theoretical goal in that framework was to
allow movement (overt or covert) only for formal morphological reasons of checking
features. That was captured by the econcomy condition (101) (discussed as (1) and (47)
of chapter 1).
101)
"If a derivation D converges without application of some operation, then that
application is disallowed" (Chomsky 1992, p. 47)
Although it is possible, of course, to introduce some arbitrary feature that justifies QR,
this goes against the spirit of the program, since there is no morphological evidence for
such features. In the case of quantifier scope, this movement is motivated only by
interpretation needs, and it is only witnessed at the inference interface.
As I mentioned in section 3 of chapter 1, it is not obvious that the strong restriction in
(101) can be maintained for overt movement, because there is growing evidence that
optional overt movement, not required for any morphological reasons is available across
languages. Nevertheless, the basics of the minimalist program enable us to state the
problem with free covert movement.
Recall (from the introduction), that the elementary requirement of the computational
system is to enable the interface, what has always been stated as relating sound to
meaning. The final outputs of the system can be viewed as pairs <p,i> of a phonological
representation and an interpretation representation. This relation is mediated by
syntactic derivations. We may either assume that the relevant properties of these
derivations are encoded in the phonological representations, as assumed in the theory of
phonological phrases, or that in generating the <p,i> pairs, the computational system is
operating on <p,d> inputs, of a phonological representation and a derivation, yielding
<p,i> outputs. I will return to these questions in chapter 3. We may note now, that the
more interpretations that can be associated with a given phonological representation, the
more complex is the computation at the context interface - the computational system
must generate more <p,i> pairs for each derivation, which is not necessarily problematic,
but at the interface, only one such pair needs to be selected in the given context. The
more there is to select from, the harder is adaptation to context.
There are several views regarding what economy considerations are (what is
‘economy’). A prevailing approach, which I examined in chapter 1, is that these
considerations minimize computational effort within the computational system itself –
the ‘least effort’ conditions. However, if we look at the problem from the perspective of
the context interface, or more generally – of language use (communication) – a principle
that would be extremely useful is to attempt at minimizing interpretative options
associated with a given phonological representation.
It may appear that by this reasoning, a perfect computational system should allow no
ambiguous phonological representations at all. But this is certainly not a possible
conclusion. The crucial requirement is to meet the interface needs to begin with. There
is no way to know that a system with no ambiguity would allow all that is needed for the
inference and context systems – it may just be too poor, hence fail the interface
requirement completely. In any case, we do know that the given human computational
system allows ambiguity, just as it allows different derivations with the same
interpretation.
But when it comes to covert movement, special attention is required to the context
interface. This is a powerful mechanism that can associate with each single phonological
representation several interpretations, obtained by movement not recoverable from the
phonological representation itself. (Since QR is not clause bound, the number of possible
scope-interpretations increases rapidly when the derivation includes one or more clausal
complements.) This is an obvious area where an interface economy requirement to
minimize interpretative options would be very useful.
The economy requirement (101) is of the type aiming at reducing the number of possible
derivations out of a given numeration. In the case of overt movement, this has nothing
to do (if it holds) with minimizing interpretative options, because overt movement
changes also the phonological representation, so the number of <p,i> pairs per derivation
does not increase, in principle, with applying as many overt operations as we want. (An
accidental increase as an outcome of overt movement is possible, of course.) But if it
applies to covert operations only, then it is a restriction on interpretative options, since
covert operations of the QR type increase, in principle, the number of interpretations
associated with a single phonological representation. Let us, then, restate (101) as (101').
101')
If a derivation D converges without application of some covert operation, then
that application is disallowed
(101') as well may turn out too strong as formulated. My crucial claim here is that some
prohibition against covert operations that increase, in principle, the number of
interpretative options associated with a given phonological phrase must hold, if the
computational system meets optimally the requirement of economy (efficiency) of the
context interface.
(101'), on this view, is just a specific instantiation of the broader economy principle
'minimize interpretative options'. As I mentioned, the prevailing concept of economy
has centered around the 'least effort' principle. Given that most arguments for such a
principle came from syntax, and they no longer hold in current syntax , as we saw in
chapter 1., it is appropriate to doubt whether such a principle is directly active at the
interface. An interface instance where it has been previously assumed is the coreference
restriction (Rule I), where variable binding was viewed, since Reinhart (1983), as a more
efficient way to express anaphora than coreference. The 'least effort' view of this
restriction is emphasized in Reuland (2001), who argues that computations applying at
the interface (coreference) are always more costly than those applying at the CS
(variable binding). However, I argued in Reinhart (2000) that there is a serious
empirical problem with the 'least effort' approach to coreference, and suggested instead
that the underlying economy principle is something like 'minimize interpretative
options'. I turn to the way this works for coreference in chapter 4. Here let me just state
a rough approximation of this principle.
(102) Minimize Interpretative Options
Unless required for convergence, do not apply a procedure that increases the
number of interpretations associated with a given single PF.
'Least effort 'is, of course, a very broad principle, that does not specify exactly what
counts as effort. It is possible, therefore, to view (102) as spelling out an instance of
this broad principle. Increasing the number of interpretations associated with a given
PF, increases also the effort required from the addressee (hearer) for identifying all
interpretative candidates and selecting one in context. So having (102) as a principle
that guides the application of interpretative procedures also conforms with 'least
effort'.
7.2. Applying the illicit QR as a repair strategy.
By what I said so far, QR is not allowed at all, namely it is an illicit operation, ruled out
by (101'). But, the whole point of this chapter was to argue that it is nevertheless needed
in a restricted set of cases. On the approach outlined in chapter 1, illicit operations may
still be used, in case the outputs of the computational system are insufficient for the
interface needs of a given context. Thus, applying an illicit operation is a strategy used
to extend the options permitted by the CS, and can be viewed as a repair mechanism.
But its application still violates a condition of the CS. (In the case of QR, it increases the
set of interpretations associated with the given PF). Therefore, their application comes at
the cost of constructing a reference set to determine whether the illicit extension of the
CS' limits is indeed justified. We may turn now to the view of QR as a repair strategy.
The roots of this approach are in the view of QR as a marked operation.
The markedness approach, stated in semantic terms, was proposed by Keenan and Faltz
(1978), who argue that lambda abstraction applies only to capture marked scope. I
followed that idea within the LF framework in Reinhart (1983, chapter 9). The approach
rests on the well motivated assumption, in the framework of generalized quantifiers, that
to interpret quantified NPs, there is no need to ever raise them. The only motivation for
movement is to obtain scope wider than their c-command domain at the overt structure.
But this scope-shift is the marked case, and it is harder to obtain than the overt ccommand scope. It is far from obvious, therefore, that the computational system should
be dramatically modified just to capture the marked cases. I proposed, instead, that the
standard interpretation of quantified NPs is in-situ, namely their scope is their overt ccommand domain. But QR may apply to create alternative scope construals. Scope
outside the c-command domain, then, requires a special operation, which does not apply
in the case of interpretation in situ. Interpretations derived by this operation then are
more costly. This may explain why they are marked and harder to obtain1.
1
This statement of the underlying idea is from Reinhart (1983), p. 197-198. It still faces
one empirical problem with quantified NPs which are complements of N, as in (ia). It
was noted in Reinhart (1976) that this is the only structure which systematically goes
against the generalization of overt c-command scope. The most available (perhaps even
As mentioned in section 3 of chapter 1, the concept of markedness was always a bit
vague, and the notion of a costly operation was not defined. However, the perspective of
reference-set strategies at the interface enables us to give it more specific content. A
marked operation is an illicit operation, which violates some principle of the
computational system. Applying such operation requires checking that there is good
reason to do this, namely that this is indeed the only way for a given derivation to meet
the interface needs. Technically, checking this involves constructing and computing a
reference-set of pairs <d,i>, of a derivation and its interpretation, all with the same input
(numeration) and the same interpretation. If the set contains a derivation that does not
use this operation, its application is ruled out. It is the fact that reference-set
computation is required, then, which makes the operation costly.
The idea that QR is a marked and costly operation rested originally on the intuition
that it is harder to obtain wide scope of universal quantifiers outside their c-command
domain. This intuition found support in empirical studies of Gil (1982), where nonlinguist subjects across languages were asked to identify scope construals of
sentences. Gil found that although non-overt scope exists in such cases, the preferred
the only possible) scope construal is with the lowest QNP (inside the NP) taking widest
scope. This is seen more clearly when there is further embedding, as in (ib).
i
a)
Some gift to every girl arrived on Xmas eve.
b)
Some gift to every girl in two countries arrived on Xmas eve.
I could only face these cases with an ad-hoc rule, and, indeed, May (1977) pointed out
that these structures, which he labeled 'inverse linking', are the strongest argument for a
QR view of scope. Within the view of QR as a marked operation, these cases should be
interpreted in situ to yield this result. But I still have to leave the question how this
happens open here.
reading (statistically) is overwhelmingly the overt one.
Nevertheless, such considerations are not sufficient to establish decisively the claim that
QR is not a free operation, but rather a costly one. In principle, there could be all kinds
of performance factors that determine why one interpretation is preferred over the other,
and the decisions regarding the structure of the computational system should not,
normally, be based on statistical frequency, or other performance considerations. Hence,
there seemed to be no independent evidence that QR applies only when needed to obtain
scope wider than overt c-command, and the debate concerning the status of QR seemed
for years to be purely theory internal.
The first direct evidence that QR does not apply freely was provided by Fox’ (1995,
2000) findings, which I surveyed in section 2 of chapter 1. A problem with covert
movement is that we normally have no direct access to check how and whether it applies
(since it has no effect on the phonological representation). However, Fox provided a
way to do that, using ellipsis structures. Recall that the problem (noted by Sag (1976)
and Williams (1977) was why the ambiguity of (103a) disappears when it is placed in
the ellipsis context of (103b).
103
a)
A doctor will examine every patient. (Ambiguous)
b)
A doctor will examine every patient, and Lucie
will [ ] too. (Only narrow scope for every patient)
104
a)
b)
Every patient1 [a doctor will [VP examine e1 ]]
and Every patient1 [Lucie will [VP examine e1 ]]
The scope construal of (103a) which disappears in the ellipsis context is that obtained by
raising every patient covertly, as in (104a). Since we know that this construal is possible
for (103a), in isolation, the explanation for the ellipsis context must rest on what happens
in the elided conjuncts. The parallelism requirement on ellipsis determines that the scope
construal in both conjuncts should be identical. Hence, to derive the reading (104a) in
this context, the elided conjunct should have the structure (104b), where every patient
raises covertly, in the same way. Fox argues that this construal is illicit, because the
movement has no effect on the interpretation - (105a), where this movement applies
covertly, is precisely identical in interpretation to (105b), where it does not.
105
<
a)
<Every patient1 [Lucie will [VP examine e1 ]]
For every patient x, Lucie will examine x>
b)
< Lucie will [VP examine every patient]
For every patient x, Lucie will examine x> >
As we saw, the way this is computed, technically, is that applying QR requires the
construction of a reference set consisting of pairs <d,i> of a derivation and its
interpretation. So the reference set for (104b, 105a) is (105). Since this set contains the
pair (105b) with the same interpretation but with a simpler derivation, (105a) is ruled
out.
If QR applies freely, there can be no difference between (104a) and (105a). In both, the
operation applies to (the same) quantified object. Thus Fox provides a proof that QR is,
in fact, not free, and it needs to be checked against the interpretative effects it produces.
This example is particularly interesting, since there is even some context pressure to
allow QR to apply here. If it does, it would allow the conjunction (103b) to have the
interpretation (104), which is not obtainable if we do not apply QR in the second
conjunct (104b). However, Fox points out that affecting the interpretation of a
neighboring derivation does not count as a sufficient reason to apply an operation
illicitly. It is only if this operation produces a new interpretation for the given derivation
itself, that it is allowed.
As I mentioned in chapter 1, Fox coaches his analysis in terms of the Minimal Link
Condition (–MLC). He still assumes that QR is an obligatory operation for all quantified
DPs. Hence it does apply also in (105b), but VP internal arguments are constrained by
the MLC to move only to a VP- initial position. If they move further, as in (105a), the
MLC would allow this longer link only if it has an interpretative effect. However, this
assumption that QR is obligatory has no empirical basis, and it rests only on theory
internal considerations. Recall that what is at stake here is the question whether the
interpretation of quantification requires obligatorily an operation like QR. On the
standard QR view, QR is an obligatory operation which is assumed to be necessary, e.g.,
in order to create the variable bound by the Q operator, regardless of whether the final
scope is isomorphic to the overt c-command domain, or not. On the alternative view,
QR is not required for the interpretation of quantification, but it is only an optional
operation for obtaining scope-shift. Whatever is needed for the interpretation of
generalized quantifiers can be captured directly at the stage of assigning a semantic
representation to sentences, as done in the Montague, or generalized quantifiers,
tradition. (It is not necessary to assume that each lambda operator required in the
semantic representation corresponds to a variable in the syntactic representation.)
The least we can conclude is that precisely the same results obtained in Fox’ analysis,
are obtained in a system where QR is an illicit operation, which never applies at all,
unless forced by relevant interface needs. We saw in chapter 1 that in recent
developments of the minimalist program, the reference-set MLC, as originally stated,
has no other evidence or use in the computational system. Forcing an otherwise
superfluous QR movement, just so it can obey this otherwise unneeded condition, does
not seem to be an optimal move.
We should note another implication of the MLC view of QR, which may have empirical
consequences. As stated, this view entails that reference-set computation is required for
every derivation that contains a quantified argument (and a two place verb). Since in
such cases QR should apply obligatorily, we have to consult the MLC to determine the
landing site of the moved argument. The MLC, in the version under consideration,
involves constructing a full reference set of <d,i> pairs in each case. Thus, consider
again the derivation of the sentence under consideration, repeated in (106), but this time
with no specified context.
106)
Lucie will examine every patient.
107
<
a)
<Every patient1 [Lucie will [VP examine e1 ]]
For every patient x, Lucie will examine x>
b)
< Lucie will [VP every patient1 [VP examine e1]]]
For every patient x, Lucie will examine x> >
The sentence contains the quantified DP every patient. This DP has to undergo QR
during the derivation. In principle, it could adjoin to either VP or IP. To decide where it
should go in practice, we need to construct the reference set in (107). Since the
interpretations are identical, and (107b) is the shorter link derivation, (107b) will be
selected as the only possible derivation. Note that this is the logic of the system –
reference set computation must apply just to decide which is the correct landing site. If
reference-set computation comes with a visible processing load, as I argued in section 3
of chapter 1, this means that (106), and all (relevant) sentences with a quantifier, are
harder to process then the same sentence with a referential argument. In other words, all
sentences with (a two place verb and) a quantifier are equally marked, in the sense
described above, since they all involve the costly reference-set computation, regardless
of which scope construal is selected. Though this has not been empirically tested, I do
not expect to find this as an actual result.
Under the alternative view I proposed here, a reference set needs to be constructed only
if we are considering applying the illicit QR. Only when this happens, there would be a
computational cost. And normally, we expect this to happen only if there is a contextual
reason to want to do that. Otherwise, condition (101') (no covert movement for needs
other than convergence) will apply and block this option from consideration.
This example illustrates a general difference between the view of reference set
computation as applying freely in the syntax, and reference set computation as a repair
strategy at the interface. The first is the standard case in optimality theory. In that
framework, even the simplest derivation is a selection from a set with worse competitors.
Hence, as I explained in chapter 1, optimality theory entails that the parser cannot be
transparent, and in actual language use, the phonetic inputs are computed by algorithms
that bypass the computational system. In a mixed system like the early minimalist
program assumed by Fox, the parser may be still be transparent, with the isolated cases
of reference-set computation as the exception.
In any case, under the view that reference set computation is involved in each derivation
containing a quantified expression, it is not possible to explain why derivations with
scope-shift are harder to obtain, or more marked then derivations with no such shift. In
both cases, the selection of an interpretation requires the same costly computation. 2
7.3. Complexity factors - the size of the reference set3
Another potential indication of the costly nature of the scope-shift operation is the
vast disagreement on the data in the linguistic literature. We noted already in passim
some of the history of such disagreements. Thus, in the seventies, it was debated
whether sentences like (108), allow indeed wide scope construal of the object
quantifier.
108)
Some tourists visited every museum.
I argued in Reinhart (1976) that "in spite of earlier reports in the literature” sentence
like (108) could not be ambiguous and “the universal cannot have scope over the
2
The same question arises for approaches building QR into the numeration, as in
Chomsky (1995), which I discussed in chapter 1. On that view, some feature like
'QUANT' must be included in the numeration, to license QR . This functional feature
will be allowed into the numeration only if it has an effect on the output, namely, if the
interpretation obtained is not identical to what will be obtained without this movement.
If this is so, there is, in fact, no concept of markedness. When an operation like QR is
needed for interpretation, it ends up indistinguishable in status from any other
economical operation. Thus, we have no obvious explanation for the fact that quantifier
scope outside the c-command domain was found, empirically, to be harder to obtain, and
less common.
3
I thank Eddie Ruys for intensive discussions and comments on this section.
subject” (p. 193). I later retracted this position in favor of a marked QR operation.
But the same type of categorical verdict surfaced again in the nineties with other
problems of scope-shift. In 1992, Ruys argued that "in spite of earlier reports in the
literature, which may have been founded on simple extrapolations from data with
strong quantifiers, rather than on actual intuitions, it seems to be impossible for the
object in [109a] to be interpreted with scope over the subject [in the distributive
construal]”. (Ruys (1992), p.106-107)
109
a)
Three men lifted two tables.
b)
X (two (X) & tables (X) & X Dλz (Y (three (Y) & men (Y)) & y lifted
z))
Under the distributive wide scope construal of two table, represented in (109b), the
sentence means something like Two tables were each lifted by three men. This construal
can be true in a situation where six men were involved in the lifting of the tables. It is,
indeed, virtually impossible to associate sentence (109a) with such a model.
The conclusion Ruys drew from this fact (which was first noted in Verkuyl, 1988) is that
plural numeral indefinites can never have wide distributive scope. This view has been
widely accepted in the nineties, and was built into the theory of Ben-Shalom (1993),
Beghelli and Stowell (1995), Kamp and Reyle (1993) and Szabolcsi (1996). In these
approaches, it is assumed that scope-shift of universal, or all strong quantifiers, is
fully free and productive. But in the case of numeral plural indefinites, it is not
allowed, either because such DPs cannot undergo QR, as proposed by Ruys, or
because the distributive operator is too low to allow the subject to be in its scope,
which is, roughly, the spirit of the analysis in Beghelli and Stowell (1995).
Although the judgment of (109) is pretty robust, we should still note that judgments of
scope shift are known to vary with contexts. Thus, what eventually settled the
previous debate regarding the status of (108), was that much more convincing
examples were found, which show the existence of scope-shift with universal
quantifiers. Typically, they are found where the overt scope results in a contextually
weird interpretation. In the case of covert universal scope, one such example is (110),
discussed by Hirschbuhler (1982) in a different context. The overt scope would yield
here the reading that one flag was stretching over all buildings, which is highly
unlikely.
110)
An American flag was hanging in front of every building.
111
a)
An American flag was hanging in front of two building.
b)
A guard stood in front of two buildings.
As noted already in section 4., in the same context, numeral indefinites can be
interpreted with wide distributive scope, as in (111). (111a) can clearly mean that
there were two buildings such that in front of each, an American flag was hanging,
and this, in fact, is the interpretation that would first come to mind. Namely, this is the
wide scope distributive reading of two buildings. The same construal is found also in
(111b). If numeral indefinites cannot scope out, which would explain the
unavailability of wide distributive scope for two tables in (109), it should also not be
available for two buildings in (111). But the fact of the matter is that the sentences in
(111) do have the distributive reading.
It appears that the state of the arts regarding covert scope-shift remains as already
described in Ioup (1975): Its availability varies dramatically with contexts and with the
individual quantifiers. As long as we do not reach clearer generalizations, beyond mere
lists, there is no reason to take one of the contexts as more representative of the behavior
of scope-shift than the others. Theoretically, we may as well take (111) as the
representative example, and leave open the question why it is so difficult to obtain the
same reading in (109). A more ambitious task would be to search for generalizations that
may explain this dramatic variation. Let us pursue here the line that is opened by the
view of QR as an illicit operation.
There appear to be two completely independent factors that determine the ease of
obtaining scope shift. One, which we already noted, is the strength of the contextual
need to apply QR. Under the present view, QR does not apply, unless there is an
interface need that requires it. A strong need of this sort is consistence with world
knowledge. As noted above, following Winter (1997), when the overt scope is
inconsistent with world knowledge, it is easier to perceive the scope-shift reading.
112
113
a)
A flag was hanging in front of twenty buildings.
b)
A bomb blew up five monuments across the world.
a)
A police truck towed away twenty cars.
b)
A student read every book.
In (112), world knowledge discards as unlikely the overt scope reading and scope
shift is preferred. But in (113), there is nothing in the world to determine which of the
two scope construals is more likely. Under the present view, applying scope shift is
always costly, because it requires reference set computation. Given that there is
nothing in the context that forces opting for scope shift, the preferred option would be
to assign the sentence the overt scope interpretation. This explains the experimental
findings in Gil (1982), where the overt scope construal was overwhelmingly the
preferred interpretation, regardless of the type of quantifier used. It is important to
note, though, that we are examining here sentences in isolation. Uttered in a discourse
context, there are many other interface needs that may force a scope shift even in
sentences like (113). Among these contextual factors are topic and focus
considerations, and the fact that specific indefinites resist scope dependence. It is also
known since Ioup (1975) that some quantifiers (like each) may force a preference for
distributive wide scope even when it involves scope shift.
However, such contextual considerations are not sufficient to explain the full range of
the facts examined above. In (113) it is possible to construct, with the appropriate
context, a scope-shift interpretation, but in (109), repeated, it is much harder to
imagine a context that would enable that. It remains virtually impossible to take (109)
to mean that up to six men were involved in lifting the relevant two tables.
109)
Three men lifted two tables.
Furthermore, Beghelli and Stowell (1997) point out that even in contexts like (111)
and (112), cited in Reinhart (1995) as examples for the availability of scope shift with
numeral indefinites, this shift is not always possible. If we replace the singular subject
with a plural numeral indefinite, scope shift becomes as difficult as in (109).
114
a)
Three flags were hanging in front of two buildings
b)
Five guards stood in front of twenty buildings.
The sentences in (114) have a funny air. The only reading that can be obtained is the
one inconsistent with world knowledge (same five guards are simultaneously in front
of twenty buildings).
There must be some internal properties of the sentences in (109) and (114) that restrict
the option of scope-shift. But what can these be? The standard approach, as we saw,
has been to search the answer in the computational system itself, specifically within
the internal properties of the moved constituent. These approaches view QR as part
of the computational system, and search for restrictions on its operation, stipulating
e.g. that plural numerals cannot undergo QR. This has a theoretical cost - QR can no
longer be viewed as just a free application of the move operation, because special
restrictions are needed on which constituents can move and where. This requires
stipulating various abstract features corresponding to different quantified DPs, and
functional projections that host these features. Still, with this massive enrichment of
the machinery of the computational system, this approach cannot, anyway, explain the
difference between (112) and (114).
Beghelli and Stowell (1997) propose an enrichment of the computational system that
does capture this difference. First they assume that the distributive operator (their
"silent each") has a fixed position lower then the external subject position ("between
AGRS-P and AGRO-P"). It is only up to that position that the internal indefinite can
move. Thus, to begin with, the subject is not in the scope of the moved indefinite and
its distributive operator. To enter this scope, the subject needs to reconstruct to its
original theta position (in Spec VP). In (112) this reconstruction takes place, so a flag
in (112a) ends up in the (distributive) scope of two buildings. But the subject cannot
always reconstruct. Beghelli and Stowell argue that only "simple indefinites" which
they define to be singular indefinites and bare plurals can do so. All other indefinites,
like the plural numeral subjects in (109) and (114), or Generalized Quantifiers
indefinites (like less then three guards) must be interpreted in their surface position.
Hence, the relevant scope shift cannot be obtained in (109) and (114).
The insight underlying Beghelli and Stowell's analysis is that it is not just the
properties of the VP internal DP that determine its ability to take wide distributive
scope, but the properties of the subject have an effect as well. However, the question
remains whether their implementation of this insight is on the right track. More
generally, the question is whether this is a problem of the Computational System or of
the interface.
Note again the cost to the computational system, if enriched the way Beghelli and
Stowell propose. Along with all the previous features and functional projections that
govern the movement of quantified DPs, we now need some mechanism restricting
reconstruction. It is far from obvious that reconstruction should be governed by
feature compatibility at all. But if it does, it is not clear what independent property
distinguishes precisely these two instances of "simple indefinites" from all other
indefinites, namely, which feature is coded.
But the crucial question is empirical - Is it indeed possible to approach the problem
with a list of the DP subjects that prevent scope-shift (or cannot reconstruct)?
Turning to this empirical question, we may note the judgments of examples in this
section may appear subtle, and many of them have not been previously discussed or
judged in the literature. To verify my intuitions, I tested all examples (in Hebrew)
with a couple of non-linguist informants, using a method specified in a footnote4.
Linguists may have biased judgments on sentences that have an established
judgment in the theory, but the sentences under consideration lend themselves easily
to testing with non-linguists, because they can be followed with questions about the
number of objects or people participating. In examples like (i)-(iii), the topmost
number allowed for the set denoted by the subject, if QR applies is given in
parenthesis. Presenting a sentence like (ia), I asked: Assuming that there are 5 tables,
how many table-cloths there are?. For (iib) the question would be: How many doctors
will examine patients? If the informant gives the narrow scope answer - one, the next
question would be: Could there be more, e.g. 10 doctors?
4
(i)
a.
b.
A tablecloth covers every table.
A doctor will examine every patient.
(Up to as many tablecloths as tables)
(Up to as many doctors as patients).
Let us look at the minimal pair in (115), where (115a) repeates (114a).
115)
a)
Three flags were hanging in front of two buildings.
b)
Three different flags were hanging in front of two buildings.
Unlike (115a), (115b) can be easily interpreted as asserting that in front of each of two
buildings, three different flags were hanging. While in (115a) the interpretation allows
for only three flags (which makes it difficult to imagine the situation described by the
sentence), in (115b) the preferred interpretation is that there were all together six flags.
The DP three different flags is not "simple indefinite" by Beghelli and Stowell's
definition, and still, in their terms, it can reconstruct. To make sure this is not some
peculiarity of the specific linguistic context in (115), let us examine other contexts.
116
a)
Two simultaneous questions confused fifteen subjects in the
experiment. (The others did fine with two simultaneous questions.)
b)
Ten matching answers brought two couples to the final round
[in a televised couples-contest].
c)
Two subsequent meetings took place in three offices.
In (116a) it is not necessarily the case that the same simultaneous questions confused
all thirty subjects. Similarly, in (116b), there is no reason to assume that the two
couples got the same matching answers, namely, the wide scope distributive reading
(ii)
a.
b.
A tablecloth covers two tables.
A doctor will examine ten patients.
(Up to two tablecloths)
(Up to ten doctors)
(iii)
a.
b.
Two doctors will examine ten patients.
Three men lifted two tables.
(Up to twenty doctors)
(Up to six men)
For (ii), I was able to solicit a yes answer to the second question in all my informal
testing. For (iii), it was impossible to convince the informants to consider the option
that there were twenty doctors or six men involved. The same method was used in the
examples to follow below. Although my testing was in Hebrew, the area of semantic
judgments of quantifier scope is not, to my knowledge, subject to variations between
Hebrew and English.
where each of the two couples got ten (possibly different) matching answers is readily
available. In (116c), each office could host a different set of two subsequent meetings,
namely there could be up to six meetings in these three offices.
What the sentences in (115b) and (116) have in common is that they disfavor a
distributive interpretation of their subjects. Roughly, this is because the property of
being simultaneous, different, subsequent or matching does not distribute among
members of the set. (The set of subsequent meetings is not a set each of whose
members is a subsequent meeting.) Given this observation, we can also note that this
is, in fact, the property shared by Beghelli and Stowell's set of "simple indefinites".
Singular indefinites obviously cannot have a distributive interpretation, and for bare
plurals, this interpretation is extremely difficult to get.
Nevertheless, having found a shared property of the subjects that do allow scope shift
of the object does not mean we can define the relevant set of DPs that can reconstruct
in terms of their internal properties, say, the set of 'non distributable' DPs. Any
numeral DP can be disambiguated to allow only the collective interpretation by using
an adverb like together. It turns out that in this case, scope shift is allowed, regardless
of the internal properties of the subject:
117
118
a)
Four guests sleep in two rooms.
b)
Four guests sleep together in two rooms.
Three Canadian flags were hanging together on two buildings.
(117a) is the standard case where object scope shift is impossible - the sentence can
only be understood as involving four guests. However, in (117b) it is possible to
construe the situation as involving eight guests, namely in each of the two rooms four
guests are sleeping together. Similarly, in (118) it is possible to construe the depicted
situation as involving six flags. These construals can only be obtained if the objects
have wide distributive scope.
The descriptive generalization seems to be that if in a given derivation the subject
could (potentially) be interpreted distributively, scope shift of the object is not
allowed. But, Crucially, we are concerned here with the potential of the subject to be
distributive, not with the question whether it in fact is. In the derivations where scope
shift was found impossible, like (117a), (114) or (109) (Two men lifted three tables),
the subject is indeed of the type that can be distributive, but it is not actually
interpreted distributively in the derivation under consideration. Namely, the scope
shift derivation is ruled out even if we interpret the subject collectively. Why should
scope shift of the object depend on whether the subject could, in principle, be
interpreted distributively in another LF derivation?
Generally, when properties of the derivation are not absolute, but depend on its
relations to possible other derivations or interpretations, this is an indication that
reference-set computation is at work. Let us turn now to what could explain the
pattern under consideration within the interface view of QR, which involves such
computation.
Even a brief checking of the problematic derivations above (like (117a) reveals that
the reason that scope-shift is ruled out cannot possibly be that the same interpretation
is obtainable without QR. QR is the only way to obtain the relevant reading, and
furthermore, we saw that there is a very good contextual reason to want to apply QR
here. But I will argue that the reason why the relevant readings cannot be derived,
despite this fact, is that the computation involved in deciding the matter is too costly.
The need to construct and compare a reference set is costly to begin with. However,
in all cases considered so far, this is a cost that at least adult speakers can bear. (In
chapter 5, I argue that children cannot.) An aspect of the computational cost that we
have not considered so far is the size of the reference-set. There may be a limit to how
much even adults can hold in their working memory while attempting to satisfy the
interface requirements.
To see this, let us first review briefly again the procedure of constructing a reference
set. When the option of applying the illicit covert movement operation is considered,
we need to construct a <d,i> pair of the intended derivation. We then need to find out
whether the same i(nterpretation) is not available without applying QR, namely
whether the same interpretation cannot be associated with the overt derivation.
Strictly speaking, the only way to find that out is by running through all the
interpretations of the overt derivation. This task is sometimes relatively simple, as in
the case of (119).
119
a)
A flag was hanging in front of every building.
f (CH (f)  z (building (z)  f(flag) was hanging in front of z))
b)
[every building] [a flag was hanging in front of e]
z (building (z) f (CH (f)  f(flag) was hanging in front of z))
120)
A student read every book.
In (119a), the only scope construal possible at the overt structure is with the universal
quantifier in the scope of the existential. What is under consideration is applying QR,
to obtain (119b), in which their scope is reversed. The two <d,i> pairs considered,
then, are (119a) and (119b). (Nothing hinges in this discussion on the choice-function
mechanism used to represent the interpretation.) Since the interpretations are distinct,
nothing rules out (119b). In this case, the evaluation of whether QR is permitted
requires considering a minimal number of just two <d,i> pairs. This is a standard cost
of reference-set computation. Whether scope-shift is easy to obtain in such derivations
depends only on the contextual needs. Since in (119) world knowledge disfavors the
overt scope construal, the reference set is constructed and the scope-shift construal
admitted. Obtaining this scope shift in (120) requires precisely the same steps and
reference set. However, as we saw, since there is nothing in the context that would
lead us to attempt a scope shift to begin with, the option would not arise in isolation,
which accounts for the feeling that it is harder to obtain in this case. (As mentioned,
there may be also other contextual factors that effect the ease of obtaining scopeshift).
But let us now look at the computation that scope shift requires in a derivation with
two plural numerals, such as (121a), which has been the problem under consideration
here.
121
a)
Two flags are hanging in front of three buildings
b)
[three buildings] [two flags were hanging in front of e]
We are considering whether the QR derivation (121b) is allowed. For this, it is
necessary to check whether the interpretation it would generate is not available also
without applying this illicit operation. In order to determine this, all scope construals
possible in (121a) need to be listed and checked. It turns out there are quite a few of
those. For ease of presentation, I will represent them only informally here.
First, there is the choice function (collective) interpretation of both indefinites, which
is summarized in (122a). (In fact, (122a) stands for two equivalent representations, a
point I return to it directly.) In this construal the situation involves two flags and three
buildings.
122
a)
Choice functions:
There is a set x of two flags and a set y of three buildings, such that x
is hanging in front of y. (two flags, three buildings)
Distributive subject:
b)
There is a set of two flags, such that for each flag x in this set,
there is a set y of three buildings, and x is hanging in front of y. (two
flags, six buildings)
c)
There is a set of three buildings y, and a set of two flags such
that each flag x in this set is hanging in front of y. (two flags, three
buildings)
Next, the overt derivation (121a) allows also a distributive interpretation of the
subject, where each member of the two flags set is considered. Recall that in the
present view, this option requires no further covert movement. Distributivity is just
an interpretative procedure that applies to the overt structure. So it is one of the
interpretations of (121a) that need to be considered. The internal three buildings can
only be interpreted via a choice function (collectively). But the existential closure of
the function variable can be either inside or outside the scope of the distributive
subject. There are, thus, two scope construals under the distributive interpretation of
the subject. In the narrow closure in (122b), the situation involves six buildings. The
wide closure in (122c) ends up equivalent to (122a), but to see that, it had to be listed
and computed.
With all these interpretative options activated and stored, we may turn to evaluate the
output of the illicit QR in (121b). In principle, the moved three buildings in (121b)
could be interpreted collectively, via a choice function. This <d,i> pair, however,
would be filtered out, because the interpretation is equivalent to what could be
obtained without QR, in (122a), or (122c). But the interpretation that could motivate
QR here, is (123b), in which three buildings is distributive.
123
a)
[three buildings] [two flags were hanging in front of e]
b)
There is a set of three buildings such that for each building x in
this set, there is a set y of two flags, and y is hanging in front of x (six
flags, three buildings).
This interpretation is indeed distinct from all the others. It is the only one that allows
the situation associated with the sentence to involve six flags. So, applying QR here is
very well motivated, and the derivation should be allowed.
But while in the case of (119) concluding that QR is allowed required holding and
comparing two <d,i> pairs, here the same procedure requires holding four such pairs
(in fact, five, as we shall see directly). This may be just too much for the human
processor. The difference in the processing load imposed by (119) and (121) is
substantial enough to suggest that the problem with obtaining scope shift in (121) is a
problem of processing. Since the reference set required for (121) is too big, the
computation cannot be completed, so scope shift cannot be approved.
The crucial complexity factor is the availability of the distributive interpretation of the
subject, combined with a plural-numeral internal argument, of the choice-function
type. This combination always adds two members to the reference set. All the facts
we discussed above now follow: If the subject is a singular indefinite, as in (112) no
distributive interpretation is possible, so these two extra members are not generated.
The same is true when the distributive construal is otherwise not easily available, as
with bare plural subjects, or the examples of (115) -(116) with three different flags,
or two subsequent meetings.
It is also clear why subjects that can in principle be distributive cause a problem in
such configurations regardless of whether they are in fact interpreted distributively.
The logic of the system is that to determine whether scope shift is allowed, all scope
construals in the derivation must be checked, to verify that the desired interpretation is
not already available without QR. There is no other way to formally verify this, but
running through all scope interpretations of the given derivation. The only case a
derivation is exempt from this construal is when it is clear that in this specific
derivation the subject cannot have the distributive reading. The other instance of such
exemption that we observed was (117), repeated.
117
a)
Four guests sleep in two rooms.
b)
Four guests sleep together in two rooms.
The derivation in (117a) follows the steps examined for (121), and scoping out two
rooms is blocked for the same reason of a processing load too heavy to determine.
But in (117b), with precisely the same subject, the distributive option is ruled out by
the collective adverb together. The fact that the subject could be distributive in
another derivation, without this adverb, is not relevant, because what we need to
consider is the set of possible scopal interpretations of the given derivation. While the
distributive interpretation of the subject is in the set for (117a), it is not in the set for
(117b).
It is important to note that considering the full set of possible scopal interpretations is
only required when one contemplates applying QR. Recall that, as discussed in
section 7.1, QR never applies just to interpret derivations, and given the choice
function mechanism, it also does not apply just for standard (collective) wide scope of
indefinites. All scope construals except for scope-shift are obtained without QR.
Under this view, the fact that (121a) and (117a), allow four scope construals, or that it
is (two way) ambiguous, is not relevant when the derivation is normally used at the
interface. Disambiguating, or selecting the interpretation appropriate to context, is an
altogether different procedure. There is no need to assume that the full set of options
needs to be considered. Thus, what I said here does not entail that (121a), without QR,
is more complex or difficult to process than (119) (with a singular indefinite subject
and a universally quantified object). The only entailment is that the QR interpretation
is relatively easy to process in (119), but it cannot be processed in (121) and (117a).
The comparison of (119) and (121) represents two edges of a spectrum of possible
reference-sets for QR. A two member-set is relatively easy; a set with four or five
members is unprocessable. In between there are other options, where the situation
may be less clear.
Thus, let us compare the computation involved in (119), repeated, with (124), where a
plural indefinite replaces every building.
119
a)
A flag was hanging in front of every building.
f (CH (f)  z (building (z)  f(flag) was hanging in front of z))
b)
[every building] [a flag was hanging in front of e]
z (building (z) f (CH (f)  f(flag) was hanging in front of z))
124)
a)
A flag was hanging in front of two buildings.
fi (CH (fi) (fj (CH (fj) ( fi(flag) was hanging in front of fj(building)))
fj (CH (fj) (fi (CH (fi) (fi(flag) was hanging in front of fj(building)))
b)
125
[two buildings] [a flag was hanging in front of e]
a)
There is a flag x, such that there is a set of two buildings y and
x was hanging in front of y.
b)
There is a set of two buildings y such that there is a flag x and x
was hanging in front of y.
In (124a) both arguments are interpreted with a choice function. Technically, this
means that the overt derivation allows two scope construals, depending on where
existential closure is applied. This is only a matter of which closure is in the scope of
the other, as given in (124a). For convenience, an informal representation of the two
options of existential closure is given in (125). The two construals are equivalent, of
course, but strictly speaking, if the reference set must include all scopal interpretations
of the overt derivation, both options need to be checked. The QR derivation in (125b)
would be filtered out if two buildings is interpreted collectively, but here it is
interpreted distributively, so the derivation is allowed.
The upshot is that while the reference set for (119) includes two <d,i> pairs, the one
for (124) includes three such pairs. (This is also the reason why the reference set for
the three flags and two buildings example in (121) includes five members, and not
four as assumed above, for brevity. The collective construal of the DPs corresponds to
two representations.) Does this difference have a processing effect? It seems
impossible to trace any difference regarding the ease of obtaining scope shift in these
sentences. But this is also the context where world knowledge strongly favors scope
shift. Recall that the theoretical verdict in the literature we started with (following
Ruys 1992) has been that plural numeral indefinites cannot scope out at all, namely,
independently of what the subject is. This must have been based on observing some
actual difficulties with scoping them out also when the subject is a singular indefinite.
If we move to a context that does not force an interpretation so strongly, there seems
to be a difference in the ease of scoping out between the two types of DPs.
126
127
a)
A tablecloth covers every table.
b)
A tablecloth covers two tables.
a)
A doctor will examine every patient.
b)
A doctor will examine twenty patients.
In an informal checking with non-linguists, my informants interpreted (126a) as
involving a separate tablecloth for each table. But the first interpretation of (126b)
was with one tablecloth for both tables (though it was possible to convince them that
there could also be two separate tablecloths). This is a context that still has a slight
preference for the scope-shift construal (since it is more common for tables to be
covered with individual tablecloths). In the context of (127b), with no preference
imposed whatsoever, it is much harder to imagine the situation as involving more than
one doctor. It is not completely impossible, as it is in the two numerals examples, but
it takes lots of efforts to construct a context that would enable that interpretation. (E.g.
that in the emergency room patients were first examined and screened by interns, who
decided that 20 patients require a doctor's attention.) Thus, there seem to be indeed a
slightly greater difficulty with scoping out numeral indefinites, and I cannot offer
more regarding why it is sometimes more difficult then at other times.
Another indication that it is the size of the reference set that determines the ease of
scope-shift, rather then the internal properties of the moved DP comes from
examining the complex numerals like more then five, less then five, or at least five. In
the literature surveyed (e.g. Beghelli and Stowell (1995)), these are considered the
most radical instances of unmovable DPs. It is believed that they are even harder to
scope out then the bare plural numerals. In fact, it seems to be the other way around
(based again on informal checking with non-linguists).
128
129
a)
A tablecloth covers two tables.
b)
A tablecloth covers at least two tables.
a)
A doctor will examine twenty patients.
b)
A doctor will examine less then twenty patients.
While in (128a) the preferred interpretation involved one tablecloth, in (128b) my
informants preferred the construal with at least two tablecloths, namely the scope shift
reading. In the context of (129), which does not impose contextual preferences, it is
much easier to perceive the scope shift reading (not necessarily the same doctor) in
(129b), then in (129a).
Recall (from section 6.4) that in the present analysis, complex numerals are not
interpretable by choice functions. (Kamp and Reyle (1993) argue that they are
interpretable only as generalized quantifiers.) For this reason, they do not have multiple
scope construals in situ. For the bare plural numerals, like two tables different scopes
can be obtained by applying closure at different projections, without moving the DP.
But for generalized quantifiers, scope wider then their overt position can be obtained
only by movement. This means that when considering their covert movement, the
reference set would be identical to the cases of (119), with an internal universal
quantifier. It contains only two members - the scope construal in situ, and the scope
construal after movement. Hence their ease of scoping out should be identical to that
of universal quantifiers, which appears to be the case.
Returning to reference sets with three members, they are found also when a
generalized quantifier is scoped over a bare numeral indefinite subject. This is
because the subject has in this case two construals - collective and distributive, so the
overt derivation comes with two members already in the reference set. One such
example is (108), repeated. I am admittedly biased regarding this sentence. In
Reinhart (1976) I used it to argue against the idea of QR, claiming that there is no
scope shift reading in this sentence. I still find this reading difficult to get (harder
than with a singular indefinite).
108)
Some tourists visited every museum.
Nevertheless, we should not attach too much significance to the difference between a
two-members reference set and a three-members set. There may be a slightly greater
processing difficulty associated with the second, but it is also obvious that a three
members reference set is not beyond the processing ability of adults, and many other
contextual factors may have a bigger effect on the ease of obtaining scope shift in this
case, then the size of the reference set.
The crucial distinction we observed in this section is that between the five-members
sets (with two or more bare numeral indefinites) and the reference sets with two or
three members. The first mark a real limitation of the human processor, so contextual
factors can do very little to save scope shift in such cases.
References
Note: These are the references for the whole book.
Abusch, D. (1994). "The scope of indefinites" Natural Language Semantics, vol 2, No 2,
p. 83-136
Akmajian, A. and R. Jackendoff (1970) ‘Coreferentiality and stress’ Linguistic Inquiry
1:124-126.
Altman, G. T. M. & Steedman, M. (1888). Interaction with context during human
sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
Ariel, Mira. (1990). Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London and New York:
Routledge.
Avrutin, Sergey (1994). Psycholinguistic investigations in the theory of reference.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. [Distributed by MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics.]
Baert, J.L. (1987). Focus, Syntax, and Accent Placements, ICG Printing, Dordrecht.
Baker, C.L. (1970). 'Notes on the description of English questions. The role of an
abstract question morpheme' Foundations of Language.
Barwise, J. and R. Cooper (1981). "Generalized quantifiers and natural language",
Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159-219.
Baauw, S., E. Ruigendijk & F. Cuetos (2003). The interpretation of contrastive stress in
Spanish-speaking children. Paper presented at GALA 2003. To appear in
Proceedings of GALA 2003.
Beghelli, F. (1993). "A minimalist approach to Quantifier scope" Proceedings of NELS
23 , GSLI, U Mass Amherst.
Beghelli, F. D. Ben Shalom and A. Szabolcsi (1993). "When do subjects and objects
exhibit a branching reading?" WCCFL XII.
Beghelli, F. (1995). The Phrase Structure of Quantifier Scope PhD dissertation, UCLA,
Los Angeles.
Beghelli, F. and T. Stowell (1995). The syntax of Distributivity and negation,To appear
in Szabolcsi (ed) 1996.
Beghelli, F. & T. Stowell (1997). Distributivity and Negation: the Syntax of each and
every, in Szabolsci (ed) ways of scope taking..
Ben-Shalom, D. (1993). "Object wide scope and semantic trees" in Lahiri (ed),
Proceedings of SALT 3, UCI.
Ben Shalom, Dorit (1996). Dependent and Independent pronouns, Chapter 2 of a UCLA
dissertation.
Bochvar, D.A. (1939). "On a three-valued logical calculus and its application to the
analysis of contradictories" Mate'mati Ca'skij Sbornik Volume 4, (Quoted in
Susan Haak, Deviant logic: some philosophical issues Cambridge University
pres, 1974.
Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is Predictable (if you’re a mind-reader). Language 48: 633644.
Carden, G (1982). "Backward anaphora in discourse context", Journal of Linguistics, 18,
p. 361-387.
Chien, Y.-Ch., and K. Wexler (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in
binding as evidence of the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language
Acquisition 1, pp. 225-295.
Chierchia, G, S. Crain, M.T. Guasti, A. Gualmini and L Meroni (2001) "The Acquisition
of Disjunction: Wvidence for a Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures" in
Anna H-J-Do et al (eds), BUCLD 25 proceedings, Somerville MA: Cascadilla
Press: 157-168.
Chierchia G. & M.T. Guasti (2000) "Backwards vs. Forward Anaphora: Reconstruction
in Child Language", Language Acquisition, 8.2:129-170.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In A Life in Language, ed. by M.
Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step, ed.
R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky,
Noam. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam (1973) "Conditions on transformations" in Stephen Anderson and Paul
Kiparsky (eds) A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New
York, p. 232-286.
Chomsky, Noam, and H. Lasnik (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In
Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Joachim
Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann,
506-569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Vol. 1. Walter de Gruyter, pp. 506-569.
(Reprinted in N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, 1995).
Chomsky, N. (1993) A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from
building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Chomsky, N. (1992). A minimalist program for linguistic theory MITWPL, reprinted as
chapter 3 in Chomsky (1995).
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1976). "Conditions on rules of Grammar" Linguistic Analysis, vol 2, no.
4. Reprinted in N. Chomsky, Essays on Form and Interpretation, North Holland,
Amsterdam, 1977.
Chomsky, N. (1975). "questions of form and interpretation" Linguistic Analysis, vol 1,
no 1.
Chomsky, N. (1971/3). Conditions on transformations. Bloomington:Indiana Univ.
Linguistics Club.
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation. In
D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics, and Interdisciplinary Reader in
Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge University Press, pp. 183216.
Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English, New York: Harper
and Row.
Chung, S. W. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey (1994). "Sluicing and Logical form",
manuscript UCSC. To appear in Natural language semantics.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic
Inquiry 24:239-298.
Clifton et al. (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
New Jersey, pp. 443-467.
Collins, Chris (1994). 'Economy of derivation and the generalized properbinding'
Linguistic Inquiry, vol 25, pp 45-61.
Collins, Chris (1997). Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Engdahl, E.: 1986,
Constituent Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Cooper, R. (1979). Variable binding and relative clauses in Guenthner and Schmidt
(eds), p. 131-170.
Cooper, R. (1983). Quantification and Syntactic Theory Reidel, Dordrecht
Crain, S., and D. Lillo-Martin (1999). An Introduction to Linguistic Theory and
Language Acquisition, Blackwell Publ., Oxford.
Crain, S and R. Thornton (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to
experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Crain, S., W. Ni, and L. Conway (1994). Learning, Parsing, and Modularity. In Ch.
Crain, S., & Hamburger, H. (1992). Semantic knowledge and NP modification. In R.
Levine (ed), Formal grammar: Theory and interpretation (vol. 2, pp. 372-401).
British Columbia: The University of British Columbia Press.
Crain, S. and C. McKee (1986) Acquisition of Structural Restrictions on Anaphora. In S.
Berman, J.-W. Choe, and .J. McDonough (eds.), Proceedings of the North
Eastern Linguistic Society 16, GLSA, Amherst, Mass., pp. 94-110.
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of
context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky
(Eds), Natural Language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical
perspectives (320-358). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cutler, A. and D. Swinney (1987). Prosody and the development of comprehension.
"Journal of Child Language 14, 145-167.
Danon, G. (1996). The Syntax of determiners in Hebrew, M.A thesis, Tel Aviv
University,
available at the URL: http://www.tau.ac.il/~danon/Thesis.html
Delfitto and D'hulst (1994). Beyond the Mapping Hypothesis. Ms., University of Utrecht.
De Jong, F. and H. Verkuyl (1985). "Generalized quantifiers: The properness of their
strength", in J. van Bentham and A. ter Meulen (eds) Generalized Quantifiers:
Theory and Application, GRASS 4, Dordrecht: Foris.
van der Does, J. (1992). Applied Quantifier Logics, PhD dissertation, University of
Amsterdam.
Dowty, D. (1986). "A note on collective predicates, distributive predicates and 'all'" in
Marshall, Miller and Zhang (eds.), Proceedings of the third Eastern State
Conference on Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Dowty, D. 1980. `Comments on the Paper by Bach and Partee.' In K.J. Kreiman, and
A.E. Ojeda (Eds), Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Epstein, S.D. (1992).'Derivational constraints on A' chain formation' Linguistic Inquiry,
23 (2):235-259
Engdahl, E. (1980). The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish, Phd
Dissertation, UMass, Amherst.
Engdahl, E. (1986). Constituent Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Evans, G. (1980). "Pronouns" Linguistic Inquiry Vol 11, no 2, p. 337-362.
Farkas, D. (1981). "Quantifier scope and syntactic islands" Proceedings of the seventieth
Chicago Linguistics Society p. 59-66.
Fiengo, Robert and Robert May (1994). Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass
Fodor, J. (1979). "In defence of the truth gap", in C.K. OH and D. A. Dinneen (eds)
Presuppositions, Syntax and Semantics 11, New York: Academic Press.
Fodor, Jerry A., Thomas G. Bever, and Merrill F. Garrett (1974). The psychology of
language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Fodor, J. and I. Sag (1982). "Referential and quantificational indefinites", Linguistics
and Philosophy 5, 355-398.
Fox, Danny (1993) "Chain and binding - A modification of Reinhart and Reuland's
'Reflexivity'", Ms. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Fox, Danny (1995). Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3:283-341.
Fox, Danny. 1999. “Reconstruction, variable binding and the interpretation of
chains”, Linguistic Inquiry 30.157–196.
Fox, Danny (1998). “Locality in variable binding”. In Is the best good enough?
Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul
Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 129-155. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press and MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Fox, Danny (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Gamut (1991). Logic, language and meaning, volume 1, University of Chicago Press.
Gathercole, S., G. Hitch, (1993). Developmental changes in short-term memory: a
revised working memory perspective. In Collins, A. F., Gathercole, S. E.,
Conway, M. A., Morris, P. E. (eds.), Theories of Memory. Hove: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 189- 211.
Gathercole, S and A. Baddeley (1993). Working memory and language. Essays in
cognitive psychology. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gennari, S., A. Gualmini, S. Crain, L. Meroni, and S. Maciukaite (2001). How Adults
and Children Manage Stress in Ambiguous Contexts. Proceedings of 1st
Workshop on Cognitive Models of Semantic Processing. University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Gil, D. (1982). "Quantifier Scope, Linguistic Variation and Natural Language
Semantics", Linguistics and Philosophy 5:421-472.
Golan, Yael (1993). 'Node crossing economy, superiority and D-linking',ms. Tel Aviv
University.
Goldsmith, John (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
Cambridge, Mass.
Goodman, N. (1972). "About" in Goodman, N., Problems and Projects, Indianapolis
Grimshaw, J., and S. Rosen (1990). Knowledge and obedience: The developmental
status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 187-222.
Grodzinsky, Yoseph. and Reinhart, Tanya (1993). 'The innateness of binding and
coreference' Linguistic Inquiry 24(1): 69-102.
Groenendijk, Jeroen. and Martin. Stokhof (1982). 'Semantic analysis of whcomplements', Linguistics and Philosophy 5(2): 175-234.
Groenendijk, J and M. Stokhof (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the
pragmatics of answers PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Gualmini, A., S. Maciukaite and S. Crain (2002). Children’s insensitivity with
contrastive stress with ONLY. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 9(1).
Gualmini,A., S. Crain, L. Meroni, G. Chierchia and M.T. Guasti (2001). At the
Semantics/Pragmatics Interface in Child Language. Proceedings of SALT XI,
231-247, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Guenthner, F. and S. Schmidt (eds) (1979). Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for
Natural Languages Reidel, Dordrecht.
Gundel, J. (1974). The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory, PhD dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin, distributed by Indiana University Linguistic Club,
Bloomington, Indiana.
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents in Dutch.
Foris, Dordrecht.
Halbert, A., S. Crain, D. Shankweiler, and E. Woodams (1995) Children's Interpretive
Use of Emphatic Stress, presented at the 8th Annual CUNY Conference on
Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ.
Halle, M., and J.-R. Vergnaud (1987) An Essay on Stress. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). "Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Part 2)," Journal
of Linguistics 3:199-244.
Hamblin, C. (1973). 'Questions in Montague English', Foundations of Language
(10):41-53. Reprinted in B. Partee (ed), Montague Grammar, New York:
Academic Press 1976.
Heim, I. (1982b). The semantics of definite and indefinite Noun Phrases,PhD
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Published in 1989 by
Garland, New York.
Heim, I. (1986). "Notes on comparatives and related matters", ms. MIT
Heim, Irene (1993). "Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation
of Reinharts Approach" SfS-Report-07-93, University of Tubingen. Reprinted in
Uli Sauerland and O. Percus, Eds., The interpretative Tract, MIT working papers
in Linguistics Vol. 25. Cambridge, Mass: MITWPL, 1998.
Heim, Irene (1998). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of
Reinhart’s approach. In The interpretative tract, ed. U. Sauerland and O.
Percus. In MIT working papers in linguistics 25. MITWPL, MIT, Cambridge,
MA.
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden,
MA
and Oxford UK: Blackwell
Hendriks, H. (1993). Studied Flexibility, PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Higginbotham, James. and Robert. (1981), 'Questions quantifiers and crossing', The
Linguistic Review, 1: 41-79.
Higginbotham, James (1983). "Logical Form, binding and nominals" Linguistic Inquiry,
14, 395-420.
Higginbotham, James (1985). 'On semantics' Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547-593.
Higginbotham (1987) "Indefinites and Predication" in Reuland, E. and A. ter Meulen
(eds) (1987). p. 41-80.
Higginbotham, James (1992). Interrogatives, ms. MIT.
Hilbert, D. and P. Bernays (1939), Die Grundlagen der Mathematik II, second edition,
reprint 1970, Springer, Berlin.
Hirschbuhler, P. (1982). "VP deletion and across the board quantifier scope", in
Proceedings of NELS 12, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. p. 132139.
de Hoop, H. 1992. Case Configuration and NP Interpretation. PhD dissertation,
Groningen.
Hornby, P. A. and W. A. Hass (1970). Use of contrastive stress by preschool children.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 13, 387-394.
Hornstein, N. and A. Weinberg: 1990, 'The necessity of LF' The Linguistic Review 7,
129-167.
Hornstein, N. (1994?) LF: The Grammar of Logial Form from GB to Minimalism, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass
Huang, Jim,: 1982, Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar, PhD
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Ingram, D. and C. Shaw (1981). The comprehension of pronominal reference in
children. MS. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Ioup, G.L. (1975), The treatment of quantifier scope in a Transformational Grammar
PhD dissertation, CUNY.
Jackendoff, R.(1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. Linguistic
inquiry
monographs ; 28 . Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Jacobson, Pauline. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and
Philosophy 22.117–184.
Kamp, H. and U. Reyle (1993), From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Karttunen, L.: 1977, 'The syntax and semantics of questions', Linguistics and Philosophy
1: 1-44.
Kayne, Richard.: 1984, Connectedness and binary branching, Foris, Dordrecht.
Keenan, Edward L., and Leonard M Faltz (1978). Logical types for natural language.
In UCLA occasional papers in linguistics 3, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Keenan, E. (1971) "Names, quantifiers and a solution to the sloppy identity problem",
Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4, no. 2.
Keenan, E. (1987), "A semantic definition of "Indefinite NP"" in Reuland, E. and A. ter
Meulen (eds), p. 109-150
Kehler, Andy (1993). A discourse copying algorithm for ellipsis and anaphora
proceedings of EACL.
Kempson, R. and A. Cormack (1981). "Ambiguity and quantification" Linguistics and
Philosophy 4, p. 259-309.
Kratzer, A. (1998). "Scope or pseudo scope? Are there wide scope indefinites?" In
Eventsin Grammar, ed. by S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Kratzer, Angelika. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. N.
Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds) , TheGeneric Book, 125–175. Chicago:University of
Chicago Press.
Kuno, S. (1972), "Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and
English" Linguistic Inquiry, 3, p. 269-336.
Kuno, S. (1975), "Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax", Papers form
the parasession on functionalism, Chicago linguistic Society, p. 276-336.
Ladd, D.R. (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Langacker, R. (1966). "On pronominalization and the chain of command" in W. Reibel
and S. Schane (eds) Modern Studies in English, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Lasnik, Howard. and M. Saito (1992). Move alpha, Cambridge, MIT press.
Lasnik, H. (1976). "Remarks on coreference" Linguistic Analysis, vol 2, no. 1.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, David (1975). 'Adverbs of quantification' in Edward Keenan, ed.. Formal
Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Link, G. (1983). "The logical analysis of Plural and Mass terms: a lattice theoretical
approach", i R. Bauerle et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of
Language, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Lust, B. and T. Clifford (1982). The 3D study: Effects of depth, distance adn
directionality on children’s acquisition of Mandarin Chinese. In J. Pustejovsky
and P. Sells (eds.) NELS 12. Amherst: University of Massechusetts, GLSA.
Lust, B., K. Loveland and R. Kornet (1980). “The development of anaphora in first
language”. Linguistic Analysis 6, 217-249.
Maratsos, M. (1973). The effects of stress on the understanding of pronominal reference
in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2, 1-8.
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification PhD dissertation MIT, reprinted by
IUC.
May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
press.
Mazuka, R. (1996). Can a grammatical parameter be set before the first words? In J.L.
Morgan and K. Demuth (eds.). Signal to Syntax, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
New Jersey.
McCawley, J. (1979). "Presuppositions and discourse structure" i Oh, C.K and D.A.
Dinneen (Eds) Presuppositions. Syntax and Semantics vol 11, Academic Press,
New York.
McDaniel, D. and Maxfield, T. (1992). Principle B and contrastive stress. Language
Acquisition, 2, 337-358.
Milsark, Gary. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Moltmann, F. and A. Szabolcsi (1994). "Scope interactions with pair-list quantifiers",
Proceedings of NELS 24.
Mulders, Iris and Floor Jas (1995). "They do exist: Backward anaphors in Dutch"
Manuscript, University of Utrecht.
Neeleman, A. (1994). Complex Predicates. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, OTS.
Neeleman A., & F. Weerman (1996). Case and Arguments in a Flexible Syntax. Ms.,
Utrecht University/OTS.
Neeleman, Ad & Fred Weerman (1999). Flexible syntax. A theory of case and
arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Neeleman, A. and T. Reinhart (1998). Scrambling and the PF interface. in W. Geuder
and M. Butt (eds) Projecting from the Lexicon. CSLI, Stanford.
Neeleman & Szendroi (2002).
Nespor, M., Th. Guasti, and A. Christophe (1996) Selecting Word Order: the Rhythmic
Activation Principle. In U. Kleinhenz (1996), Interfaces in Phonology,
Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1-26.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Nishigauchi (1986),?
Nooteboom, S.G, & J.G. Kruyt (1987). Accents, Focus Distribution, and the Perceived
Distribution of Given and New Information. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 82(5), 1512-1524.
Pesetsky, D. (1982), Paths and categories PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass
Pesetsky, David (1987).'Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding', in E. Reuland
and A. ter Meulen, eds. The representation of (in)definites, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Pinto, M. (1994). Subjects in Italian: Distribution and Interpretation. Ms.,University of
Utrecht, OTS.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag (1992) "Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding
theory" Linguistic Inquiry 23:261-305.
Postma, G (1984). "The Dutch pronoun diens; distribution and reference properties", in
Hans Bennis and van Lessen Kloeke (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands.
Prince, E. (1979), "On the given/new distinction," in W. Hanks, C. Hofbauer and P.
Clyne (eds) Papers from the fifteenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
Society, p.267-78.
Prince, E. (1981). "Towards a taxonomy of Given-New information", in P. Cole (ed.)
Radical Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, p. 233-255
Pulleyblank, Douglas, and William J. Turkel (1998). The logical problem of language
acquisition in optimality theory. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and
competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha
McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 399-420. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Putnam, H. (1958). "Formalization of the concept 'about'", Philosophy of science vol 25,
no 2.
Reinhart, Tanya (forthcoming). Processing or Pragmatics? - Explaining the
ecoreference delaty. To appear in Ted Gibson and Neal Pearlmutter (eds) The
processing and acquisition of reference, MIT Press
Reinhart, T. (2000). 'Strategies of anaphora resolution''. In Hans Bennis, Martin
Everaert and Eric Reuland (eds) Interface Strategies. Royal Netherlands Academy of
Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Reinhart, T. (1999). The processing cost of reference-set computation: Guess patterns
in acquisition. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics, 99001- CL/TL, The
University of Utrecht.
Reinhart, T. (1999b). Binding theory, In Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, eds
(1999), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, Cambridge Mass: MIT
Press: 86-88
Reinhart, T. (1998). Interface economy: Focus and markedness. In The role of
economy principles in linguistic theory, ed. Chris Wilder, Hans-Martin
Gaertner, and Manfred Bierwisch. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Reinhart, T. (1997). “Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and Choice
Functions”, Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335-397.
Reinhart, T. (1995). Interface Strategies, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics, University
of Utrecht. TL-95-002,University of Utrecht.
Reinhart, T. and Eric Reuland (1993). 'Reflexivity' Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657-720.
Reinhart, T. (1993). Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Lecture
at Utrecht Linguistic Colloquium. [Distributed by OTS Working Papers in
Linguistics (1994, TL-94-003) and printed with slight revisions in Natural
Language Semantics, vol 6: 29-56, 1998].
Reinhart, T. (1992). 'wh-in-situ: an apparent paradox' in P. Dekker et al eds Proceedings
of the eights Amsterdam Colloquium.
Reinhart, T.(1991). 'Elliptic conjunctions: Non quantificational LF', in A. Kasher, ed.
The Chomskyan Turn, Blackwell.
Reinhart, T. (1987). "Specifier and operator binding" in Reuland, E. and A. ter Meulen
eds.
Reinhart, T. (1986). "On the interpretation of 'donkey' sentences", in. E.C. Traugott et al.
(ed) On Conditionals, Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, T. (1983a). Anaphora and semantic interpretation Croom-Helm; Chicago
University press.
Reinhart, T. (1983b). 'Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora
questions', Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 6, No. 1.
Reinhart, T. (1981a). "Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics",
Philosophica volume 27, no 1. Distributed also by Indiana University
Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.
Reinhart, T. (1981b). 'A second Comp position' in A. Belletti et al., eds. Theory of
Markedness in Generative Grammar, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.
Reinhart, T. (1979). Syntactic domains for semantic rules in Guenthner and Schmidt
(eds).
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora, PhD dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass. Distributed by MITWPL.
Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland (1991) "Anaphors and logophors: An argument
structure perspective". In Jan Koster and E. Reuland, eds, Long Distance
Anaphora, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland (1993) "Reflexivity", Linguistic Inquiry 24:657-720.
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32.3: 439-492.
Reuland, E. and A. ter Meulen, eds (1987). The representation of (in)definites,MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Ristad, Eric (1992). Computational structure of natural language, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT, distributed by MITWPL.
Rizzi, Luigi. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rodman, R. (1976). "Scope phenomena, 'movement transformations', and relative
clauses"
in B. Partee, ed. Montague Grammar, Academic Press: New York
Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora and distributivity, PhD dissertation,
UMass, Amherst.
Rooth, M. (1992). A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75116.
Rooth, Mats (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Ross, J. R (1969). "Guess who" in R. Binnick et al (eds) CLS 5, proceedings of the Fifth
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois. p. 252286.
Ruys, Eddy (1992). The scope of Inderfinites PhD, Utrecht University, publishedin the
OTS Dissertation Series.
Ruys, E. (2000), Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon Linguistic Inquiry 31.513–539.
Ruys, E.G. (1996) Some notes on economy conditions in Chapter 4. Ms., University
of Utrecht.
Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and Logical Form, PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Scha, R. (1981). "Distributive, collective, and cumulative predication" in J. Groenendijk
et as (eds) Formal Methods in the study of Language, Mathematical Center,
Amsterdam, p. 485-512.
Selkirk, E. O. (1996) "Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress and Phrasing," in The
Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith (ed.) Basil Blackwell:
London.
Selkirk, E.(1984a). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Selkirk, Elizabeth (1984b). Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schwarzschild, Roger (1999). “Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the
placement of accents”. Natural Language Semantics 7.141–177.
Solan, L. (1983). Pronominal reference: Child language and the theory of grammar.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Solan, L. M. (1978). Anaphora in child language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Strawson, P. (1964). "Identifying reference and truth values", Theoria vol 30. Reprinted
in Strawson, P. Logico Linguistic Papers, London Methuen (1974), and in D.
Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics London: Cambridge University
Press.
Swinney, D. (1979) Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (re)consideration of
context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior 18, pp. 645659.
Swinney, D., J. Nicol, and E.B. Zurif (1989) The effects of focal brain damage on
sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1, pp. 25-37.
Swinney, D., and P. Prather (1989) On the comprehension of lexical ambiguity by young
children: investigations into the development of mental modularity. In D.S.
Gorfein (ed.), Resolving Semantic Ambiguity, Springer Verlag, New York, pp.
225-238.
Szabolsci and Zwarts (1991)
Szabolcsi, A. (1995) "On modes of operation", in Paul Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds),
Proceedings of teh 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam.
Szabolcsi, A. (1996), Strategie for Scope taking" in Szabolcsi (ed) (1996).
Szabolcsi, A. (ed), (1996), "Ways of Scope Taking" , Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Szendrői,K. (2001) ‘Focus and the syntax-phonology interface’ PhD dissertation,
UCL, London.
Szendroi, K. (2003). Acquisition Evidence for an Interface Theory of Focus. Paper
presented at GALA 2003. To appear in Proceedings of GALA 2003.
Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition. Ph.D.
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Tavakolian, S. (1974). Contrastive stress pattern in four years old, Ms., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tavakolian, Susan L. (1977). Structural principles in the acquisition of complex
sentences Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Taylor-Browne, K. (1983). Acquiring restrictions on forwards anaphora: A pilot study.
In Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics 9. Calgary: Alberta: University of
Calgary, Department of Linguistics.
ter Meulen, A. and E. Reuland, eds (1987) The Representation of (In)definites,
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Tesar, Bruce (1998). Error-driven learning in optimality theory via the efficient
computation of optimal forms. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and
competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha
McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 421-435. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Thornton, Rosalind, and Kenneth Wexler. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis and
interpretation in child grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thornton, Rosalind (1998). Children’s interpretation of pronouns. Paper presented at
the Trieste conference on acquisition, September 1998.
Thornton, Rosalind, and Kenneth Wexler. In press. Principle B, VP ellipsis and
interpretation in child grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thornton, R (1990). Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex
wh-questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs.
Tsai, Wei-Tien (1994). On Economizing the Theory of A-Bar Dependencies, PhD.
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Vallduvi, E. (1990). The Informational Component. PhD dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania.
Vallduvi, Engdahl, and Herman Hendricks.
Verkuyl, H.J. (1988). "Aspectual asymmetry and quantification" in V. Ehrich & H.
Vater (eds.) Temporalsemantik: Beitrage zur Linguistik der Zeitreferenz
Tubingen, p. 220-259.
Wexler, K. and Y. C. Chien (1991). "Children's knowledge of locality conditions n
binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics" Language
Acquisition, 1, 225-295.
Wexler, K. and Y.-Ch. Chien (1985). The development of lexical anaphors and
pronouns. In Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 24, Stanford
University.
Williams, E. (1977), "Discourse and logical form", Linguistic Inquiry vol 8, No 1.
Williams, E. (1986) "A reassignment of the functions of LF" Linguistic Inquiry Vol 17,
p. 265-299.
Williams, Edwin. (1997(. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28.577–628.
Winter, Y. (1997), "Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites",
Linguistics
and Philosophy 20.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1994). Word order, prosody and focus. Ms., University of
Southern California.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Zuckerman, S., N. Vasić and S. Avrutin (2001). The Syntax-Discourse Interface and the
Interpretation of Pronominals by Dutch-speaking Children. Paper presented at
the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development
(BUCLD 26), Boston, USA.
Zuckerman, S., N. Vasic and S. Avrutin. (in progress) Pronominal reference in child
language. Ms. UiL OTS, Utrecht University.
Liberman (1979)