| Summary: | <p>Quantification over individuals, times, and worlds can in principle be made explicit in the syntax of the object language, or left to the semantics and spelled out in the meta-language. The traditional view is that quantification over individuals is syntactically explicit, whereas quantification over times and worlds is not. But a growing body of literature proposes a uniform treatment. This paper examines the scopal interaction of aspectual raising verbs (<em>begin</em>), modals (<em>can</em>), and intensional raising verbs (<em>threaten</em>) with quantificational subjects in Shupamem, Dutch, and English. It appears that aspectual raising verbs and at least modals may undergo the same kind of overt or covert scope-changing operations as nominal quantifiers; the case of intensional raising verbs is less clear. Scope interaction is thus shown to be a new potential diagnostic of object-linguistic quantification, and the similarity in the scope behavior of nominal and verbal quantifiers supports the grammatical plausibility of ontological symmetry, explored in Schlenker (2006).</p><p><strong>References</strong></p><p>Ben-Shalom, D. 1996. Semantic Trees. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.<br /><br />Bittner, M. 1993. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Reidel.<br /><br />Cresswell, M. 1990. Entities and Indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer.<br /><br />Cresti, D. 1995. ‘Extraction and reconstruction’. Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01252885" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01252885</a><br /><br />Curry, B. H. & Feys, R. 1958. Combinatory Logic I. Dordrecht: North-Holland.<br /><br />Dowty, D. R. 1988. ‘Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent conjunction’. In Richard T. Oehrle, Emmon W. Bach & Deirdre Wheeler (eds.) ‘Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures’, 153–197. Dordrecht: Reidel.<br /><br />Fox, D. 2002. ‘TOn Logical Form’. In Randall Hendrick (ed.) ‘Minimalist Syntax’, 82–124. Oxford: Blackwell.<br /><br />Gallin, D. 1975. Intensional and higher-order modal logic: with applications to Montague semantics. North Holland Pub. Co.; American Elsevier Pub. Co., Amsterdam: New York.<br /><br />Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. 1984. The Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.<br /><br />Heim, I. 1992. ‘Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude reports’. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183<br /></a><br />Heim, I. 2001. ‘Features of Pronouns in Semantics and Morphology’. Ms., Universität Tübingen.<br /><br />Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.<br /><br />Herman, H. 1993. Studied Flexibility: Categories and Types in Syntax and Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.<br /><br />Hintikka, J. 1962. Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP.<br /><br />Homer, V. 2009. ‘Epistemic modals: high ma non troppo’. In ‘Proceedings of NELS 40’, .<br /><br />Iatridou, S. 1994. ‘On the contribution of conditional then’. Natural Language Semantics 2: 171–199.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01256742" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01256742</a><br /><br />Jacobson, P. 1999. ‘Towards a variable-free semantics’. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 117-184.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005464228727" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005464228727<br /></a><br />Karttunen, L. 1977. ‘The syntax and semantics of questions’. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 1–44.<br /><br />Kusumoto, K. 2005. ‘On the quantification over times in natural language’. Natural Language Semantics 13: 317–357.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4537-6" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4537-6<br /></a><br />Lasnik, H. 1999. ‘Chains of arguments’. In Samuel Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds.) ‘Working Minimalism’, 189–217. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.<br /><br />Lassiter, D. 2011. Measurement and Modality: The Scalar Basis of Modal Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, New York University.<br /><br />Lechner, W. 2006. ‘An interpretive effect of head movement’. In Mara Frascarelli (ed.) ‘Phases of Interpretation’, 45–71. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.<br /><br />Lechner, W. 2007. ‘Interpretive Effects Of Head Movement’. Ms.,<br /><a href="http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000178" target="_blank">http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000178</a> (accessed January 15, 2011).<br /><br />Mascarenhas, S. 2010. ‘Causing-to-have vs. Having-for: The Syntax of Double-object Get’. Ms., New York University.<br /><br />May, R. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.<br /><br />Montague, R. 1974. ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’. In R. Thomason (ed.) ‘Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague’, 247–271. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.<br /><br />Nchare, A. L. 2011. The Grammar of Shupamem. Ph.D. thesis, New York University.<br /><br />Partee, B. 1973. ‘Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English’. The Journal of Philosophy 70, no. 18: 601–609.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2025024" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2025024</a><br /><br />Percus, O. 2000. ‘Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax’. Natural Language Semantics 8, no. 3: 173–229.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011298526791" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011298526791<br /></a><br />Percus, O. & Sauerland, U. 2003. ‘On the LFs of attitude reports’. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung.<br /><br />Perlmutter, D. 1970. ‘The two verbs begin’. In R. Thomason (ed.) ‘Readings in English Transformational Grammar’, 107–119. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.<br /><br />Polinsky, M. 2008. ‘Real And Apparent Long-distance Agreement In Subject-to-subject Raising Constructions’. Lecture at the Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society, Bamberg.<br /><br />Quine, W. V. O. 1960. ‘Variables explained away’. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104: 343–347.<br /><br />Schlenker, P. 1999. Propositional Attitudes and Indexicality (A Cross-Linguistic Approach). Ph.D. thesis, MIT.<br /><br />Schlenker, P. 2004. ‘Sequence phenomena and double access readings generalized’. In J. Lacarme & J. Guéron (eds.) ‘The Syntax of Time’, 555–597. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.<br /><br />Schlenker, P. 2006. ‘Ontological symmetry in language’. Mind and Language 21: 504–539.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00288.x" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00288.x<br /></a><br />Stechow, A. von. 2004. ‘Binding by verbs: tense, person, and mood under attitudes’. In H. Lohnstein & S. Trissler (eds.) ‘The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery’, 431–488. Berlin: de Gruyter.<br /><br />Stechow, A. von. 2008. ‘Tenses, Modals, and Attitudes as Verbal Quantifiers’. Ms., ESSLLI Hamburg.<br /><br />Stechow, A. von. 2009. ‘Syntax and semantics: an overview’. To appear in: Maienborn, Claudia et al. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br /><br />Steedman, M. 1988. ‘Combinators and Grammars’. In R. Oehrle, E. Bach & D. Wheeler (eds.) ‘Categorical Grammars and Natural Language Structures’, 417–442. Dordrecht.<br /><br />Steedman, M. 2000. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.<br /><br />Stowell, T. 1995a. ‘The Phrase Structure of Tense’. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (eds.) ‘Phrase Structure and Lexicon’, 277–291. Dordrecht: Kluwer.<br /><br />Stowell, T. 1995b. ‘What Do the Present and Past Tenses Mean?’ In P. Bertinetto et. al. (ed.) ‘Temporal Reference, Aspect, and Actionality. Vol. 1: Semantics and Syntactic Perspectives’, 381–396. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.<br /><br />Szabó, Z. G. 2011. ‘Bare quantifiers’. Philosophical Review 120: 247–283.<br /><br />Szabolcsi, A. 1987. ‘Bound variables in syntax (are there any?)’. In J. Groenendijk et. al. (ed.) ‘Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium’, 331–351. Amsterdam: Institute for Language,Logic, and Information.<br /><br />Szabolcsi, A. 1992. ‘Combinatory grammar and projection from the lexicon’. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (eds.) ‘Lexical Matters. CSLI Lecture Notes 24’, 241–269. Stanford, CSLI Publications.<br /><br />Szabolcsi, A. 2009a. ‘Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements cross-linguistically’.<br /><a href="http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/lingu/nyuwpl/" target="_blank">http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/lingu/nyuwpl/</a>.<br /><br />Szabolcsi, A. 2009b. ‘Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements in Hungarian’. In M. den Dikken & V. Robert (eds.) ‘Approaches to Hungarian 11’, 251–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br /><br />Szabolcsi, A. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br /><br />Yanovich, I. 2009b. ‘How Much Expressive Power Is Needed For Natural Language Temporal Indexicality?’ In L. D. Beklemishev & R. de Quieroz (eds.) ‘Proceedings of Logic,Language, Information and Computation’, 293–309. 18th International Workshop, WoLLIC 2011, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Dordrecht: Springer.<br /><br /></p>
|
|---|
