Information Structure and Scope Interactions: Disjunction Wide Scope Induced by Focus

In this paper we investigate the scopal reading of disjunctions in French negative sentences with pre-schoolers. We posit that the French disjunctor “ou” does not fit the traditional disjunction PPI/non-PPI dichotomy according to which a wide scope is taken by a PPI disjunction and a narrow scope when the disjunction is not a PPI. We hypothesized that focus could be a succesful scopal manipulator. Using Truth Value Judgment Tasks (TVJT), we tested French pre-schoolers' scopal reading of negated disjunctions in a neutral prosody condition and with prosodic focus on the disjunctor in a between subject design. We found that as predicted, prosodic focus often enduced participants to adopt a disjunction wide scope reading whereas a disjunction narrow scope reading was favored in the neutral prosody condition. This confirmed our hypothesis that focus can manipulate disjunction scope paramaters. It also shows that, when the disjunction is focalised, children have access to the disjunction wide scope reading earlier than previously thought. Finally, we can conclude that the distinction between PPI-disjunctor vs. non-PPI disjunctor languages needs to be more fine-grained.

Distributivity and modality: where 'each' may go, 'every' can't follow

Von Fintel and Iatridou (2003) observed a striking pattern of scopal noninteraction between phrases headed by strong quantifiers like 'every' and epistemically interpreted modal auxiliaries. Tancredi (2007) and Huitink (2008) observed that von Fintel and Iatridou’s proposed constraint, the Epistemic Containment Principle (ECP), does not apply uniformly: it does not apply to strong quantifiers headed by 'each'. We consider the ECP effect in light of the differential behavior of 'each' and 'every' in the environment of 'wh-', negative, and generic operators as described by Beghelli and Stowell (1997). Assuming that epistemic and root modals merge at two different syntactic heights (e.g. Cinque 1999) and that modals may act as unselective binders (Heim 1982), we extend Beghelli and Stowell’s topological approach to quantifier scope interactions in order to formulate a novel syntactic account of the ECP.

The Interpretation of Indifference Free Relatives

The behavior of -<em>ever</em> free relatives is unlike that of universal quantifiers and of plain definites, and their analysis has therefore been controversial. This paper argues that the availability of <em>de dicto</em>-like readings for <em>-ever</em> FRs in non-local ACD constructions can be explained by an analysis like the one proposed by von Fintel (2000), whereby "indifference" FRs are definites with a counterfactual presupposition. Other scope interactions undergone by indifference FRs further separate them from universals, while their differences from plain plural definites can be captured by a good-fit condition like the one proposed by Brisson (1997) for <em>all</em>.

Distributivity and modality: where 'each' may go, 'every' can't follow

Von Fintel and Iatridou (2003) observed a striking pattern of scopal noninteraction between phrases headed by strong quantifiers like 'every' and epistemically interpreted modal auxiliaries. Tancredi (2007) and Huitink (2008) observed that von Fintel and Iatridou’s proposed constraint, the Epistemic Containment Principle (ECP), does not apply uniformly: it does not apply to strong quantifiers headed by 'each'. We consider the ECP effect in light of the differential behavior of 'each' and 'every' in the environment of 'wh-', negative, and generic operators as described by Beghelli and Stowell (1997). Assuming that epistemic and root modals merge at two different syntactic heights (e.g. Cinque 1999) and that modals may act as unselective binders (Heim 1982), we extend Beghelli and Stowell’s topological approach to quantifier scope interactions in order to formulate a novel syntactic account of the ECP.

Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives

Recent work by Bresnan and colleagues (Bresnan 2007, Bresnan et al. 2007, Bresnan and Nikitina 2007) has argued that double object and prepositional dative constructions are essentially identical, the choice between them being conditioned by various factors. I argue against this conclusion, showing that the grammar clearly distinguishes double object from prepositional dative constructions. Under certain circumstances, the first object of a double object construction can shift to the right, with the preposition to appearing, but the grammar still distinguishes this from a prepositional dative construction that looks identical on the surface. The phenomena that I investigate are scope interactions with quantifiers and locative inversion. In addition, the rightward reordering operations investigated here indicate that constraints on variable binding, including weak crossover, must be formulated in terms of linear order rather than hierarchy.