Richard K. Larson

On the syntax of disjunction scope

ConclusionThe account of disjunction proposed above is an interesting one, I believe, not simply because a principled account has been given of a certain collection of data, but also because the relation between the syntactic and semantic analyses is an intuitively satisfying one. Under the account argued for here the syntactic properties of elements such as either and whether are almost entirely predictable given three components of information: (i) the meaning of disjunction as explicated by Rooth and Partee (1982); (ii) a number of general principles and conditions, and (iii) certain very simple lexical facts such as the fact that either is [−WH], while whether is [+WH]. In view of the first component we know that disjunction takes scope through binding of a free variable. The second component presumably gives us that scope is syntactically represented, that scope assignment involves movement to an Ā position, that the trace of this movement is subject to ECP, that the domain of this movement is bounded by Subjacency, &c. Finally, given either and whether as scope indicators, the third component entails that the former adjoins to S, and so marks scope within the minimal sentence containing its associated disjunction, while the latter moves to COMP, and so may mark scope in broader domains.From the standpoint of language acquisition these represent promising results, particularly when considered with reference to recent thinking in the philosophy of mind. Suppose we assume, following Fodor (1983), that certain meanings or concepts — perhaps a large number of them — are given to the language learner as a part of universal biological endowment, and that the task of acquiring these meanings is essentially one of ‘identification’, i.e., of matching concepts with morphemes from the spoken environment. The meanings of basic logical connectives such as and, or, if are plausible candidates for membership in this universally available class. Then adopting the semantics of disjunction discussed above, the language learner will know that or takes scope, and that he or she may tacitly expect scope markers. The task then reduces essentially to identifying such markers in the stock of morphemes encountered, of picking out either and whether as the relevant items, or of postulating their null counterparts in languages where phonetically realized markers are lacking. Once this identification is made, the syntactic properties of either and whether then follow immediately, as we have seen. Correlatively, given our results concerning conjunction, the language learner will also know that and does not take scope, and hence that no such markers are to be expected or hypothesized. Thus he or she would tacitly know that both is not and could not be a scope indicator, and hence must be assigned some other syntactic status, say, quantifier phrase. If this general picture is correct, therefore, we appear to move toward a genuinely explanatory account of disjunction.

On Indefinite Pronoun Structures with APs: Reply to Kishimoto

A number of authors have claimed that indefinite pronoun constructions like everything red are formed by raising a noun (thing) over a higher prenominal adjective (red). We examine phenomena in English and other languages which appear to show that adjectives participating in the indefinite pronoun construction do not correspond to prenominal forms, but to postnominal ones. We evaluate the challenges these results present for the N-raising account, showing that while some can be met, others apparently cannot. This outcome calls for a reexamination of postnominal position with indefinite pronouns.

Temporal Adjectives and the Structure of Possessive DPs

The presence of temporal adjectives in possessive nominals like Johns former car creates two interpretations. On one reading, the temporal adjective modifies the common noun (N-modifying reading). On the other, it modifies the possession relation (POSS-modifying reading). An explanation for this behavior is offered that appeals to what occurs in possessive sentences like John has a former car (N-modifying reading) and John formerly had a car (POSS-modifying reading). In the sentential cases, the source of two readings is two distinct, modifiable phrases. Given the parallels, we propose a structure for possessive nominals analogous to that of possessive clauses. Specifically, we argue that such nominals include a locative small-clause structure, following Freeze (1992), and we explain the ambiguity structurally, as a simple matter of where temporal adjectives attach (NP vs. PP). We show that this analysis provides a straightforward basis for the semantic composition of possessive nominals.

On Pylkkänen's Semantics for Low Applicatives

ON PYLKKÄNEN’S SEMANTICS FOR LOW APPLICATIVES Richard K. Larson Stony Brook University Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Ruys, E. G. 1992. The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. Utrecht: LEd. Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26:29–120. Schwarz, Bernhard. 2001. Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. In Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by Robert van Rooy and Martin Stokhof, 192–197. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, ILLC. Stechow, Arnim von. 1984. My reaction to Cresswell’s, Hellan’s, Hoeksema’s and Seuren’s comments. Journal of Semantics 3: 183–199. Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:399–467.

A NOTE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ADJOINED RELATIVE CLAUSES

ConclusionBy accepting the above proposals for translating tenses it appears possible to achieve a very general account of the interpretation of Warlpiri adjoined clauses. Moreover, if the analysis is correct it would provide an interesting example of natural language generalizing across tenses and NPs, since what we would have is a single syntactic construction whose interpretation varied according to whether an NP or a tense were translated with a distinguished variable. These results thus serve to pose once again the question of where precisely the common features of tenses and NPs reside. Recent work applying model-theoretic techniques to natural language semantics may well provide an answer. Thus in Dowty (1979) and Larson and Cooper (1980) NPs and tenses both denote the same sort of set-theoretic object, viz., sets of sets. Within generalized quantification theory this is just to say that both NPs and tenses denote quantifiers (cf. Barwise and Cooper, 1981, for much illuminating information on quantifiers and natural language). It may thus be possible to view the interpretation of Warlpiri adjoined clauses as a case of natural language generalizing across the semantic type of quantifiers.

The syntax and semantics of when-questions

0. This paper presents a novel account of the syntax and semantics of questions, making use of the framework for linguistic description developed by Richard Montague (1974). Certain features of the proposal are based on work by N. Belnap (1963), L. Aqvist (1965), C. L. Baker (1968, 1970), S. Kuno and J. Robinson (1972), C. L. Hamblin (1973), E. Keenan and R. Hull (1973), J. Hintikka (1974), Lewis (1975), and D. Wunderlich (1975), but it differs from all of its predecessors in one way or another. I will start with a number of observations which provide the basis for the treatment of questions presented in the second part of the paper and conclude with a summary and a brief discussion of how the proposed description compares with recent transformational analyses.

Superiority and Scope Freezing

David Lebeaux (cited in Larson 1990:603) observes that English double object constructions (DOCs) show “scope freezing” between the two objects. Quantified indirect and direct object arguments must be interpreted in their surface order (1a). Schneider-Zioga (1988) makes a similar observation about quantified arguments in the with-variant of spray-load constructions (1b); they also exhibit scope freezing.

On “Dative Idioms” in English

Appeals to idiom data have played an important role in arguments about the relation between English prepositional datives (Mary gave a present to John) and double object forms (Mary gave John a present).The claimed existence of idioms in both types has led researchers to conclude that the two constructions are independent, with no derivational relation between them. This article shows that the factual claims are mistaken: no English dative idioms exist in either type. Forms like give ~ the creeps/show ~ the ropes are not double object idioms because they are not idioms—they are fully compositional. Forms like throw ~ to the wolves/send ~ to the showers are not dative idioms because they are not datives—they are caused-motion constructions. The former misanalysis arises from a confusion of idioms with collocations. The latter misanalysis arises from a simplistic view about the syntax-semantics mapping, namely, that oblique datives univocally express caused motion. Given that English dative idioms do not exist, arguments about the derivational relatedness of dative forms in English must appeal to other data.