9.1197, Sum: Bound Pronoun and Quantifer Scope

[LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-9-1197. Sun Aug 30 1998. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 9.1197, Sum: Bound Pronoun and Quantifer Scope

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Wayne State U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
                    Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
                    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
		    Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sat, 29 Aug 1998 15:17:53 +0900 (JST)
From:  Miura Ikuo <a966702d at eds.ecip.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Subject:  Bound Pronoun and Quantifer Scope

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 29 Aug 1998 15:17:53 +0900 (JST)
From:  Miura Ikuo <a966702d at eds.ecip.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Subject:  Bound Pronoun and Quantifer Scope

About a month ago, I posted the following two questions.

*********
Question 1

  In his (1993) paper "On Weakest Crossover", Postal observes the
contrast between (1) and (2).

(1)
a.  Which lawyer did his clients hate?      (his=which lawyer)
b.  the lawyer who his clients hate         (his=the lawyer=who)

(2)
a.  Which lawyer did even his clients hate?     (his=which lawyer)
b.  Which lawyer did only his clients hate?      (his=which lawyer)
c.  the lawyer who even his clients hate         (his=the lawyer=who)
d.  the lawyer who his clients hate         (his=the lawyer=who)

According to him, the sentences of (1) are all unacceptable under the
intended reading.  In contrast, those of (2) are acceptable under the
intended interpretation.  I want to know whether all native speakers
agree with this judgement.

Question 2

   In Pica and Snyder (1994) "Weak Crossover, Scope, and Agreement in
a Minimalist Framework", it is argued that in (3), the wide scope
reading of *everyone* over *someone* is strongly disfavored.  (The
wide scope reading of *everyone* is that for every person x, there is
a person who likes x.)

(3)  Someone likes everyone.

 And they argue that this fact explains the unacceptability of (1a)
under the reading in which *his* and *which lawyer* are coreferential.
I want to know whether all native speakers agree with Pica and
Snyder's judgement about (3).  I also want to know whether or not
*everyone* in (4) have wide scope over *only a person*.

(4)  Only a person loves everone.
**********


The following people send me the answers.

Randall Henry Eggert
Bernard Kripkee
Suzette Haden Elgin
Keith J. Miller

  As for question 1, the judgements vary according to the speakers.
Only one speaker judged (1) to be unacceptable, although (s)he said
that they are only marginally unacceptable.  But two speakers judged
(1) to be acceptable, though one of them noted that they are not
preferred English sentences.  And one speaker said that the judgements
about sentences like (1) and (2) are unstable.  Two of the above four
contributors said that (2) are better than (1).  (I made a typo for
the sentence (2d).  The correct sentence is 'the lawyer who only his
clients hate'.  I'm sorry for confusing you.)

  Three people of the above four contributors commented on question 2.
Only one speaker said that the wide scope reading of *someone* is
preferred in (3).  But the others said that the wide scope reading of
*everyone* is not disfavored and is readily acceptable.  In any case,
I haven't collected sufficient date to estimate Pica and Snyder's
claim.
  As for (4), one speaker said that it is hard to get anything but the
narrow scope of 'everyone', but the other two said that the sentence
is highly unnatural, although one of them also judged that the wide
scope of 'everyone' cannot be easily accepted.


Thanks again to all the people who answered my questions.

Ikuo Miura
a966702d at eds.ecip.nagoya-u.ac.jp

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-1197