Exceptional Scope as Discourse Reference to Quantificational Dependencies

The paper proposes a novel solution to the problem of exceptional scope (ES) of (in)definites, exemplified by the widest and intermediate scope readings of the sentence Every student of mine read every poem that a famous Romanian poet wrote . We propose that the ES readings have two sources: (i ) discourse anaphora to particular sets of entities and quantificational dependencies between these entities that restrict the domain of quantification of the two universal determiners and the indefinite article; (ii ) non-local accommodation of the discourse referent that restricts the quantificational domain of the indefinite article. Our account, formulated within a compositional dynamic system couched in classical type logic, relies on two independently motivated assumptions: (a ) the discourse context stores not only (sets of) individuals, but also quantificational dependencies between them, and (b ) quantifier domains are always contextually restricted. Under this analysis, (in)definites are unambiguous and there is no need for special choice-functional variables to derive exceptional scope readings.

[1]  Anna Szabolcsi Ways of Scope Taking , 1997 .

[2]  I. I. N. Kamp Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation , 1996 .

[3]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[4]  M. H. van den Berg,et al.  Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. The dynamics of nominal anaphora , 1996 .

[5]  Rick Nouwen,et al.  Plural pronominal anaphora in context , 2003 .

[6]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language. part 2 , 1981 .

[7]  A. Kratzer Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites? , 1998 .

[8]  Y. Winter,et al.  Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites , 1997 .

[9]  Bernhard Schwarz,et al.  Two kinds of long-distance indefinites , 2001 .

[10]  T. Reinhart Quantifier Scope: How labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions , 1997 .

[11]  Carlo Cecchetto,et al.  Semantic Interfaces: Reference, Anaphora, and Aspect , 2001 .

[12]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Referential and quantificational indefinites , 1982 .

[13]  Donka F. Farkas The unmarked determiner , 2006 .

[14]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Varieties of Indefinites , 2002 .

[15]  Betty Birner Free Choice in Romanian , 2005 .

[16]  E. G. Ruys,et al.  The scope of indefinites , 1992 .

[17]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Evaluation Indices and Scope , 1997 .

[18]  Gregory Ward,et al.  Drawing the boundaries of meaning : neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn , 2006 .

[19]  Daniel Gallin,et al.  Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic, With Applications to Montague Semantics , 1975 .

[20]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  STRUCTURED NOMINAL AND MODAL REFERENCE , 2008 .

[21]  C. Reiss,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces , 2007 .

[22]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands , 1981 .

[23]  D. Pesetsky,et al.  ON THE INTERPRETATION OF WIDE-SCOPE INDEFINITES* , 1999 .

[24]  B. Geurts Indefinites and Choice Functions , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[25]  Angelika Kratzer A Note on Choice Functions in Context , 2003 .

[26]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language , 1983 .