• Lena BaunazEmail author
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 83)


Set within the Chomskyan tradition, this book provides a typology of French Quantifiers (Qs, i.e. scope-bearing elements), based on their syntactic, semantic and prosodic behaviors.1 More specifically, the main issues are to investigate their nature(s), their meaning(s), as well as the dependency(ies) they enter into.


Noun Phrase Bare Noun Negative Concord Existential Presupposition Scope Ambiguity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abush, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2:83–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adli, Aria. 2006. French wh-in-situ questions and syntactic optionality: Evidence from tree data types. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25:163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baunaz, Lena. 2005. The syntax and semantics of wh in-situ and existentials: The case of French. Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics 2.2. 1–27.Google Scholar
  4. Baunaz, Lena. 2008. Floating quantifiers: french universal quantifiers and N-words. In Selected Proceedings of the 34th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Special Issue of the Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, vol. 33. P. Beninca˛, F. Damonte and N. Penello (eds.). Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF-movement. Natural Language Semantics 4:1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beghelli, Fillipo. 1997. The syntax of distributivity and pair-list reading. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), 349–408. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In The Second Glot International State-of-The-Article Book, Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma (eds.), 107–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Boeckx, Cédric. 1999. Decomposing French questions. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6.1, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, J. Alexander, N.R. Han and M. Minnick Fox (eds.), 69–80. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  9. Bošković, Zeljiko. 2000. Sometimes in SpecCP, sometimes in-situ. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 53–87. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, Lisa. 1997. Wh-in situ in French. MA thesis, University of British Colombia.Google Scholar
  11. Cheng, Lisa. 1991. On the Typology of Wh-questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  12. Cheng, Lisa and Johann Rooryck 2000. Licensing wh-in-situ. In Syntax 3 (1):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corblin, Francis and Lucia Tovena 2003. L’expression de la négation dans les langues romanes. In Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, Danièle Godard (ed.), 279–341. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  14. Corblin, Francis, Vivian Déprez, Henriette de Swart and Luci Tovena. 2004. Negative concord. In Handbook of French Semantics, Francis Corblin and Henriette de Swart (eds.), 427–461. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Déprez, Viviane. 1997. Two Types of Negative Concord. Probus 9:103–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Déprez, Viviane. 2000. Parallels (A)symmetries and internal structure of negative expressions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18:253–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Déprez, Viviane. 2003. Concordance négative, syntaxe des mots-N et variation dialectale. Cahier de Linguistique Française 25:97–118.Google Scholar
  18. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection. On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Doctoral dissertation, HIL, Leiden University. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
  20. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25.Google Scholar
  21. Farkas, Donka. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Langues et Grammaires 1, Lea Nash and George Tsoulas (eds.), 119–137. Paris: Universite Paris.Google Scholar
  22. Farkas, Donka. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fitzpatrick, Justin Michael. 2006. Syntactic and Semantic Routes to Floating Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Fodor, Jerry and Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5:355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative concord and the scope of universals. Transactions of the Philological Society 98:87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haegeman, Liliane and Raffaela Zanuttini. 1991. Negative heads and the Neg criterion. The Linguistic Review 8:233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  30. Hagstrom, Paul. 2001. Particle movement in Sinhala and Japanese. In Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahjan (eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  32. Huang, James. 1982. Move WH in a language without WH movement. The Linguistic Review 1:369–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ihsane, Tabea. 2008. The Layered DP. Form and Meaning of French Indefinites. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Junker, Marie-Odile. 1995. Syntax et sémantique des quantifieurs flottants tous et chacun. Distributivité en sémantique conceptuelle. Genève: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
  35. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kobuchi-Philip, Mana. 2003. Distributivity and the Japanese Floating Numeral Quantifier. Ph.D. dissertation. City University of New York.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Edward Keenan (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lipták, Aniko. 2001. On the Syntax of Wh-items in Hungarian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  39. Mathieu, Eric. 2002. The Syntax of Non-Canonical Quantification: A Comparative Study. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
  40. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, published in 1979. New York-London: Garland.Google Scholar
  41. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1992. L’interprétation des structures-wh et l’accord du partiticipe passé. In Structure de la Phrase et Théorie du Liage, Hans-Georg Obenauer and Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), 169–195. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
  42. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Aspects de la Syntaxe A-Barre. Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
  43. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definites, Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen (eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Puskás, Genoveva. 2000. Quantification in the left periphery: A syntactic argument for ‘split’ domains. In CLS 36, Volume 1: The Main Session, John Boyle, Jung-Huyck Lee and Arika Okrent (eds.). Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago.Google Scholar
  45. Puskás, Genoveva. 2002. Floating quantifiers: What they can tell us about the syntax and semantics of quantifiers. GG@G 3:105–128.Google Scholar
  46. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope. How labour is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rizzi, Luigi. 2002. The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84:159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A Theory of floating quantifiers and its corrolaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3):425–449.Google Scholar
  50. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  51. de Swart, Henriette and Ivan Sag 2002. Negation and negative concord in romance. Linguistics and Philosophy 25:373–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1:255–291.Google Scholar
  54. Zanuttini, Raffaela. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations