Comparisons of Equality With German so…wie, and the Relationship Between Degrees and Properties

We present a compositionally transparent, unified semantic analysis of two kinds of so…wie-equative constructions in German, namely degree equatives and property equatives in the domain of individuals or events. Unlike in English and many other European languages (Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998, Rett 2013), both equative types in German feature the parameter marker so, suggesting a unified analysis. We show that the parallel formal expression of German degree and property equatives is accompanied by a parallel syntactic distribution (in predicative, attributive, and adverbial position), and by identical semantic properties: Both equative types allow for scope ambiguities, show negative island effects out of context, and license the negative polarity item überhaupt ‘at all’ in the complement clause. As the same properties are also shared by German comparatives, we adopt the influential quantificational analysis of comparatives in von Stechow (1984ab), Heim (1985, 2001, 2007), and Beck (2011), and treat both German equative types in a uniform manner as expressing universal quantification over sets of degrees or over sets of properties (of individuals or events). Conceptually, the uniform marking of degree-related and property-related meanings is expected given that the abstract semantic category degree (type $d$) can be reconstructed in terms of equivalence classes, i.e., ontologically simpler sets of individuals (type $\langle e,t\rangle $) or events (type $\langle v,t\rangle $). These are found in any language, showing that whether or not a language makes explicit reference to degrees (by means of gradable adjectives, degree question words, degree-only equatives) does not follow on general conceptual or semantic grounds, but is determined by the grammar of that language.

The effects of focus on scope relations between quantifiers and negation in Korean

This paper addresses the effects of focus-marking (i.e. nun-marking) on the scope of quantified expressions in Korean negation constructions and shows how these inform the analysis of Korean negation constructions generally. Specifically, highlighting the “Rigid Scope” properties of Korean (in contrast with English), focus-marking in Korean negation constructions eliminates quantifier/negative scope ambiguities. In all cases but one, a focus-marked element has scope over all others. The anomalous case involving contrastive focus of object universal quantifiers brings the semantics of quantifiers into opposition with the semantics of contrastive focus.

Pragmatics in the interpretation of scope ambiguities

This paper presents a corpus study of pragmatic factors involved in interpreting potentially ambiguous sentences with negation and universal quantifiers, as demonstrated by the Russian sentence Oni ne uspejut vsjo eto sdelat’ ‘They won’t have time to do all this.’ Ambiguity in such sentences results from potential differences in scope assignment. If negation scopes over the quantifier, we get the interpretation of partial negation: ‘They will manage to do some of these things, but not everything.’ If negation scopes over the verb, we get total negation: ‘They won’t manage to do anything.’ This study is based on Russian and English data extracted from a variety of corpora. We demonstrate that while syntactic conditions where scope ambiguity is possible are different for Russian and English, in situations when both languages allow it, speakers rely on the same pragmatic mechanisms for disambiguation that are based on Gricean cooperation principle and shared background knowledge. Disambiguation is facilitated by lexical markers, different for verb-negated and quantifier-negated readings, and similar in Russian and English. We show that the interpretation of the quantifier is pragmatically different for verb-negated and quantifier-negated readings (emphatic in the former case and quantificational in the latter), and lexical markers of each reading are semantically and pragmatically consistent with this difference. Namely, verb-negated readings occur primarily in the context of demonstrative pronouns in their pragmaticalized meaning of negative assessment and negatively connoted nouns, while quantifier-negated readings occur in the context of verbs with quantitative semantics and quantitative implicatures that consolidate the interpretation of quantification.

Gesture in contexts of scopal ambiguity: Negation and quantification in English

Gestures can play a facilitative role in the interpretation of structural ambiguities (Guellaiï, Langus, & Nespor, 2014; Prieto, Borràs-Comes, Tubau, & Espinal, 2013; Tubau, González-Fuente, Prieto, & Espinal, 2015) and are associated with spoken expression of negation (Calbris, 2011; Harrison, 2014a; Kendon, 2002, 2004). This study examines gestural forms and timing patterns with specific interpretations intended by speakers in a context of negation in English where the presence of quantification (all/most/many) yields scope ambiguities, for example, All the students didn’t go = (1). Some number of the students went, but all is not the correct number (negation takes wide scope over the quantifier; not>all), versus (2) some number of the students didn’t go, and all is that number (negation takes narrow scope over the quantifier, all>not; see Horn, 2001, Jackendoff, 1972; Syrett, Simon, & Nisula, 2014b). Twenty-five native English speakers produced scopally ambiguous sentences. Analyses of 317 co-occurring gestures revealed a preponderance of head gestures and use of semantically congruent head shakes, alignment of gestures with the negator, and lengthening of gesture strokes where interpretations involved narrow-scope negation. Results are discussed with reference to scope of negation and gesture (Harrison, 2010, 2013, 2014a, 2014b) particularly in comparison to variable patterns found for prosody (Syrett, Simon, & Nisula, 2014a).

On The Analysis of Scope Ambiguities in Comparative Constructions: Converging Evidence from Real-Time Sentence Processing and Offline Data

This paper compares two accounts of an ambiguity that arises when a comparative phrase containing an exactly differential is embedded under an intensional operator (Heim 2000). Under one account, the comparative phrase is responsible for the ambiguity (the er-scope theory), and, under the other, the ambiguity is attributed to the exactly phrase (the exactly-scope theory). We present converging evidence from the distribution of de re and de dicto readings and real time sentence processing that supports the er-scope theory. Since the er-scope theory presupposes a quantificational analysis of the comparative, such an analysis is ipso facto supported by our results.

Zum Begriff der einfachen Supposition im 13. Jhdt.

In mediaeval logic a common term is often said to supposit simply, if it supposits for a concept and not for the elements of its extension. Due consideration of the logical texts of the 13th century, however, gives rise to the assumption, that a) the common aspect of the several uses of a term which are referred to as simple suppositions is not so easy to be found and that b) for some authors simple supposition was an extensively used tool for the logical analysis of sentences. In my paper I will enlarge on this second aspect with particular reference to the syncategoremata of William of Sherwood. My study leads to the conclusion that simple supposition in the 13th century is sometimes used to analyse scope ambiguities between the existential quantor and another operator. This is due to the fact that mediaeval logicians did not conceive of anything equalling an existential quantor.