scholarly journals The logic of Quantifier Raising

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (20) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Barker
Keyword(s):  
Quantifier Raising

Raising Quantifiers without Quantifier Raising

1996 ◽  
pp. 189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hisatsugu Kitahara
Keyword(s):  
Quantifier Raising

Syntax of the Palestinian Arabic negation-associated exclusive construction

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 103-118
Author(s):  
Samir Khalaily
Keyword(s):  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
Negative Polarity Item ◽  
Sentential Negation ◽  
Quantifier Raising ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Right ◽  
Palestinian Arabic

Abstract This paper presents an analysis of a Palestinian Arabic negation-associated exclusive construction featuring the contrastive focus marker illa ‘but’, with theoretical implications for the syntax of negation, negative polarity item licensing, and the categorical status of the root in sentential syntax. It analyzes illa-phrases as constituents licensed by a c-commanding sentential negation (Neg), and illa as a grammatical device encoding contrastiveness. A crucial source for the exclusive semantics of the construction comes from a silent bass ‘only’ immediately following illa that constitutes a syntactic ‘shield’ against Neg scope. Rather than taking an in-situ focus-interpretation approach (cf. Rooth 1985, 1992), we argue for two covert movements at the syntax-semantics interface: quantifier raising of illa-phrases to the designated specifier of polarity Phrase followed by Polarity-to-Focus-raising of Neg. This creates the right syntactic configuration for the truth conditional import of both operators and captures the ‘classical’ thought that focus-sensitive exclusive operators like only quantify over propositional alternatives.

Dissociating intervention effects from superiority in English wh-questions

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadas Kotek
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
Natural Language Semantics ◽  
Intervention Effects ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
Language Semantics ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
Quantifier Raising ◽  
Comprehensive Study

Abstract In wh-questions, intervention effects are detected whenever certain elements – focus-sensitive operators, negative elements, and quantifiers – c-command an in-situ wh-word. Pesetsky (2000, Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) presents a comprehensive study of intervention effects in English multiple wh-questions, arguing that intervention correlates with superiority: superiority-violating questions are subject to intervention effects, while superiority-obeying questions are immune from such effects. This description has been adopted as an explanandum in most recent work on intervention, such as Beck (2006, Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56) and Cable (2010, The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford University Press), a.o. In this paper, I show instead that intervention effects in English questions correlate with the available LF positions for wh-in-situ and the intervener, but not with superiority. The grammar allows for several different ways of repairing intervention configurations, including wh-movement, scrambling, Quantifier Raising, and reconstruction. Intervention effects are observed when none of these repair strategies are applicable, and there is no way of avoiding the intervention configuration – regardless of superiority. Nonetheless, I show that these results are consistent with the syntax proposed for English questions in Pesetsky (2000, Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) and with the semantic theory of intervention effects in Beck (2006, Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56).

CP-Negation and the Domain of Quantifier Raising

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 674-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Potsdam
Keyword(s):  
Quantifier Raising

The scope of even and quantifier raising

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimiko Nakanishi
Keyword(s):  
Quantifier Raising

Competence, Performance, and the Locality of Quantifier Raising: Evidence from 4-Year-Old Children

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Syrett ◽  
Jeffrey Lidz
Keyword(s):  
Landing Site ◽  
Locality Constraint ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Quantifier Raising ◽  
Embedded Clause ◽  
Finite Clause ◽  
Insight Into

We revisit the purported locality constraint on Quantifier Raising (QR) by investigating children's and adults' interpretation of antecedent-contained-deletion (ACD) sentences, where the interpretation depends on the landing site targeted by QR out of an embedded clause. When ACD is embedded in a nonfinite clause, 4-year-old children and adults access both the embedded and the matrix interpretations. When ACD is embedded in a finite clause, and the matrix interpretation is generally believed to be ungrammatical, children and even some adults access both readings. These findings allow for the possibility that the source of QR's reputed locality constraint may instead be extragrammatical, and they provide insight into the development of the human sentence parser.

scholarly journals Antecedent contained deletions in native and non-native sentence processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 554-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Boxell ◽  
Claudia Felser ◽  
Ian Cunnings
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Real Time Processing ◽  
Verb Phrase ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
Quantifier Raising ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract We report the results from an eye-movement monitoring study investigating native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers’ real-time processing of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), a type of verb phrase ellipsis in which the ellipsis gap forms part of its own antecedent. The resulting interpretation problem is traditionally thought to be solved by quantifier raising, a covert scope-shifting operation that serves to remove the gap from within its antecedent. Our L2 group comprised advanced, native German-speaking L2 learners of English. The analysis of the eye-movement data showed that both L1 and L2 English speakers tried to recover the missing verb phrase after encountering the gap. Only the native speakers showed evidence of ellipsis resolution being affected by quantification, however. No effects of quantification following gap detection were found in the L2 group, by contrast, indicating that recovery of the elided material was accomplished independently from the object’s quantificational status in this group.

Similarities and Differences between Quantifier Raising and Wh Movement Out of Adjuncts

Syntax ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-184
Author(s):  
Misako Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Quantifier Raising ◽  
Similarities And Differences
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document