Abstract
In this paper I propose a theory of scope that is less structure driven than the traditional approach. The traditional view of scope is structural in the sense that the relative scope of two expressions is taken to be determined by their relative position at some level where hierarchical relations are encoded. More precisely, in this view, e 1 is in the scope of e 2 iff e 2 commands e 1 at the appropriate structural level. I take the term command in its generic sense here, meaning ‘higher than’ and leave the details of how to define its domain unspecified for now. Common to all varieties of command is that it is defined at the sentence level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abusch, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2):83–135.
Beghelli, Filippo. 1993. A minimalist approach to quantifier scope. In Amy J. Schafer (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23, Volume One, 65–80, Amherst. GLSA Publications, University of Massachussetts.
Beghelli, Filippo, Dorit Ben-Shalom, and Anna Szabolcsi. 1996. Variation, distributivity, and the illusion of branching. In this volume.
Beghelli, Filippo, and Tim Stowell. 1996. Distributivity and negation. In this volume.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1994. Descriptions in Context. PhD thesis, Yale University.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1993. On the denotation and scope of indefinites. Unpublished manuscript, Centre National Research Scientifique, Paris.
Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Toward a referential analysis of temporal expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(4):405–426.
Farkas, Donka. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Roberta Hendrik et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 59–66.
Farkas, Donka. 1985. Intensional Descriptions and the Romance Subjunctive Mood. New York: Garland.
Farkas, Donka. 1993. Modal anchoring and NP scope. Linguistics Research Center working paper LRC-93–08.
Farkas, Donka. 1994. Specificity and determiner reduplication in Hungarian. Paper presented at the Predication and Specification Workshop, Santa Cruz.
Farkas, Donka, and Anastasia Giannakidou. 1996. How clause-bounded is the scope of every? To appear in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory VI.
Fodor, Janet, and Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3):355–398.
Gil, David. 1995. Universal quantifiers and distributivity. In Emmon Bach et al. (Eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, Volume 1, 321-362. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachussetts, Amherst.
Ioup, Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers.Lin-guistics and Philosophy 1(2):233–245.
Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kaplan, David. 1979. On the logic of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1):81–98.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1979. Conditional necessity and possibility. In Rainer Bäuerle et al. (Eds.), Semantics from Different Points of View, 117–147. New York: Springer Verlag.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1980. The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer and Hannes Rieser (Eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Liu, Feng-hsi. 1990. Scope Dependency in English and Chinese. PhD thesis, UCLA.
Ludlow, Peter, and Stephen Neale. 1991. Indefinite descriptions: in defense of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(2):171–202.
McCawley, James. 1977. Lexicographic notes on English quantifiers. In Woodford A. Beach et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 372–383.
McCawley, James. 1981. Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic but were Ashamed to Ask. The University of Chicago Press.
Moltmann, Friederike. 1994. Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Unpublished manuscript.
Poesio, Massimo, and Alessandro Zucchi. 1992. On telescoping. In Chris Barker and David Dowty (Eds.), SALT II: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (OSU WPL 40), 347–367. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Roberts, Craige. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6):683–721.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1979. Assertion. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1996a. Background notions in lattice theory and generalized quantifiers. In this volume.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1996b. Strategies for scope taking. In this volume.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Each and every, any and all. In Linguistics in Philosophy, 70–97. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Farkas, D.F. (1997). Evaluation Indices and Scope. In: Szabolcsi, A. (eds) Ways of Scope Taking. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 65. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-4451-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5814-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive