Abstract
Nakanishi (Nat Lang Semant 20(2):115–136, 2012) presents a novel argument for the so-called scope theory of English sentential even (VP-even), based on examples with antecedent-contained deletion (ACD). Nakanishi’s argument is based on the assumption that even cannot associate with a focus which has moved out of its LF scope. I show that this assumption is incorrect, defusing Nakanishi’s argument. I propose that when even associates with a focus which has moved out of its surface scope, it actually associates with focused material in the lower copies of movement (trace positions). I show that a closer look at ACD examples of Nakanishi’s type in fact yields a new argument against the scope theory. I conclude that English sentential even must always be interpreted in its pronounced position. The patterns of focus association with even presented here constitute a new argument for the copy theory of movement.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baltin, Mark R. (1987) Do antecedent-contained deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry 18, 579–595
Beaver, David Ian, Clark, Brady (2008) Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
Beaver, David Ian, Krahmer, Emiel J. (2001) A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 147–182
Chemla, Emmanuel (2009) Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17, 299–340
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building, vol. 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cooper, Robin (1983) Quantification and syntactic theory. Reidel, Dordrecht
Culicover, Peter, Jackendoff, Ray (2001) Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 493–512
Dalrymple, Mary; Shieber, Stuart; Pereira, Fernando (1991) Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399–452
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014a. Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 18, ed. Urtzi Etxeberria et al., 128–145. Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014b. Movement out of focus. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Fox, Danny. 1995. Condition C effects in ACD. In Papers on minimalist syntax, ed. Rob Pensalfini and Hiroyuki Ura, 105–119. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Fox, Danny (2002) Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 63–96
Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In Proceedings of WCCFL, vol. 18, ed. Sonya Bird et al., 132–144. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Giannakidou, Anastasia (2007) The landscape of EVEN. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 39–81
Guerzoni, Elena (2004) Even-NPIs in yes/no questions. Natural Language Semantics 12, 319–343
Haïk, Isabelle (1987) Bound VPs that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 503–530
Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL, vol. 2, ed. Michael Barlow, Daniel P. Flickenger, and Nancy Wiegand, 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Herburger, Elena (2000) What counts: Focus and quantification. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Horn, Laurence Robert. 1969.Apresuppositional analysis of only and even. In Papers from the fifth regional meeting, ed. Robert I. Binnick et al., 98–107. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Jackendoff, Ray (1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Jacobson, Pauline (2008) Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of antecedent contained deletion. In: Johnson, Kyle (ed.) Topics in ellipsis, pp. 30–68. Cambridge University Press, New York
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition, ed. Oh Choon-Kyu and David A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.
Kay, Paul. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 59–111.
Kayne, Richard (1998) Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1, 128–191
Kennedy, Christopher (1997) Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 662–688
Krifka, Manfred (1992) A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In: Jacobs, Joachim (ed.) Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, pp. 17–53. Springer, New York
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT, vol. 8, ed. Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson, 111–129. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Lasnik, Howard. 2006. A family of questions. Unpublished handout from presentation at USC.
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
May, Robert Carlen (1985) Logical form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Nakanishi, Kimiko (2012) The scope of even and quantifier raising. Natural Language Semantics 20, 115–136
Partee, Barbara Hall (1973) Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 509–534
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116
Rullmann, Hotze (1997) Even, polarity, and scope. In: Gibson, Martha, Wiebe, Grace, Libben, Gary (eds.) Papers in experimental and theoretical linguistics, vol. 4, pp. 40–64. University of Alberta, Department of Linguistics, Edmonton
Rullmann, Hotze (2003) Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics 20, 329–401
Rullmann, Hotze, and Sigrid Beck. 1998. Reconstruction and the interpretation of which-phrases. In Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen Workshop, ed. Graham Katz, Shin-Sook Kim, and Heike Winhart, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs, vol. 340 no. 127, 223–256. Universities of Tübingen and Stuttgart.
Sag, Ivan Andrew. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Sauerland, Uli (2004) The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12, 63–127
Schwarz, Bernhard (2005) Scalar additive particles in negative contexts. Natural Language Semantics 13, 125–168
Sudo, Yasutada (2014) Presupposition projection in quantified sentences and cross-dimensional anaphora. University College London, London
van der Sandt, Rob A. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377
von Stechow,Arnim. 1991. Current issues in the theory of focus. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 804–824. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wagner, Michael. 2013. Manuscript, McGill University, Additivity and the syntax of even (September 2013)
Wilkinson, Karina (1996) The scope of even. Natural Language Semantics 4, 193–215
Williams, Edwin S. (1977) Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erlewine, M.Y. Even doesn’t move but associates into traces: A reply to Nakanishi 2012. Nat Lang Semantics 26, 167–191 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9142-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9142-6