Generalised Crossover

Crossover (CO) is a constraint on anaphoric dependencies, according to which, quantifier scope can feed pronominal anaphora unless the anaphoric expression precedes the quantifier. We demonstrate that effects reminiscent of CO arise with presupposition as well, and propose to generalise CO as follows: Projective content (quantifier scope, presupposition projection, etc.) feeds semantic dependencies (pronominal anaphora, presupposition satisfaction), unless the semantically dependent expression precedes the trigger of the projective content. We call this generalisation, Generalised Crossover (GCO). Although we cannot offer a full explanation for GCO in this paper, we will discuss its implications for recent theories of CO.

Does explicit instruction affect L2 linguistic competence? An examination with L2 acquisition of English inverse scope

This article investigates whether explicit instruction can affect second language (L2) competence in the domain of English quantifier scope. An intervention study was conducted with L1-Mandarin L2-English learners in order to examine (1) whether these learners can learn inverse scope for the structure on which they are instructed (double-quantifier configuration: A dog scared every man; quantifier-negation configuration: Every sheep did not jump over the fence); (2) whether they can correctly generalize availability of inverse scope from the configuration on which they are instructed to one on which they are not instructed; and (3) whether learners overgeneralize inverse scope to a superficially similar configuration that does not allow inverse scope. Following Schwartz (1993), generalization is taken to be a hallmark of true acquisition (= changes to linguistic competence) as opposed to learning. The results show that learners successfully learn inverse scope for the configuration on which they are instructed, but do not generalize availability of inverse scope to the other configuration. Moreover, learners instructed on double-quantifier configurations overgeneralize availability of inverse scope to island configurations such as There is one dog which scared every man. The findings indicate that in this domain, explicit instruction does not affect linguistic competence.

Children's interpretation of negation and quantifier scope in L3 English

Languages differ in the preferences for the interpretation of the scope relation between negation and a quantifier. This study investigates the understudied issue of how interpretive preferences associated with a quantifier scope in learners’ L1 and L2 affect their scope interpretations in L3 acquisition. Based on the current models of L3 acquisition, we tested which language, L1 or L2, exerts a stronger effect on the L3 acquisition of quantifier scope. To this end, the study involved two groups of multilingual children (11–13 years old) with different L1s (Chinese or Russian) but with the same L2 (Korean) and L3 (English). The participants completed truth-value judgment tasks designed to investigate their interpretation patterns for English sentences with negation and a quantifier (e.g., Tom did not cut all the trees). The results showed that both groups preferred the L3 interpretation similar to that preferred in their L2, but not in their L1, suggesting a potential L2 influence on L3 acquisition. The study evaluates L3 acquisition theories in light of these results.

On the scope of quantifier phrases in Chinese passive construction

Quantifier phrases (QP) can co-occur in a single sentence, which may cause ambiguity in terms of scope relation, viz. wide scope and narrow scope interpretations. Aoun & Li (1993) claim that quantifier scope ambiguity also exists in Chinese passive construction, such as yige nűren bei meige ren ma ‘a woman was scolded by everyone’. Following Lee (1986)’s proposal, it is argued in this paper that the scopal relations of Chinese QPs are not purely syntactic as in Aoun & Li’s analysis, but should be determined by the interaction between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Based on naturalistic data, it is shown that (i) Chinese QPs can be classified into whQP, distributive-universal QP and group-denoting QP, whose semantic properties determine the scope relations between them; (ii) in general, a QP is devoid of referentiality, yet it can acquire referentiality depending on its co-occurrence with other QPs or contextual factors; (iii) the subject definiteness constraint in Chinese, a language-specific constraint, would affect the interpretation of subject QPs in Chinese passive construction.

Quantification

Quantification is abundant in natural language and is one of the most studied topics in generative grammar. Sentences with multiple quantifiers are famously ambiguous with respect to their quantifier scope, representing a type of ambiguity related to, but not necessary the same as, structural ambiguity. Two key questions in the psycholinguistic study of quantification are: (i) how does the human processor assign quantifier scope? and (ii) how and under what circumstances is this scope assignment reanalysed? The investigation of these questions lies at the intersection of psycholinguistics and theoretical linguistics. The chapter summarizes both strands of research, and discusses experimental data that played an essential role in the (psycho)linguistic theorizing about the topic of processing quantification and quantifier scope.