Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T19:49:34.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantifier Scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Susumu Kuno,
Ken-ichi Takami and
Yuru Wu
Susumu Kuno*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Ken-ichi Takami*
Affiliation:
Tokyo Metropolitan University
*
Susumu Kuno Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Boylston Hall 315, Cambridge, MA 02138 [kuno@husc4.harvard.edu]
[ktakami@bg.mbn.or.jp]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article critically examines Aoun and Li's (1993) syntactic analysis of quantifier scope interpretations in English, Chinese, and Japanese, and it shows that (i) there are serious theoretical problems with Aoun and Li's account of scope interpretations for the double object and topicalization constructions; (ii) there are ambiguous sentences that Aoun and Li's analysis predicts to be unambiguous; and (iii) there are unambiguous sentences which their analysis predicts to be ambiguous. While problem (iii) makes their analysis insufficient, problems (i) and (ii) make it untenable. We propose a quantifier scope analysis that is free from any of the above three problems. We claim that the quantifier scope interpretations of a given sentence result from the interactions of various principles, some syntactic, others nonsyntactic. We propose an expert system that takes all these principles into consideration, and arrives at a composite opinion of the relative strengths of the potential scope interpretations of a given sentence. We speculate that wide idiolectal variations in quantifier scope interpretations are due to differences among speakers on the relative weights these principles receive in their respective expert systems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , March 1999, pp. 63 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aoun, Joseph, and Hornstein, Norbert. 1985. Quantifier types. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 623–36.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, and Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1989. Constituency and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 141–72.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beghelli, Filippo. 1993. A minimalist approach to quantifier scope. North East Linguistic Society 23. 65–80.Google Scholar
Beghelli, Filippo, and Stowell, Tim. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. Ways of scope taking, ed. by Szabolcsi, Anna, 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. The minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from building 20, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, John. 1996. Expert systems and theory of knowledge. Artificial intelligence, ed. by Boden, Margaret A., 157–81. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012161964-0/50008-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1986. Scope interpretation in Japanese and its theoretical implications. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 5. 87–101.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form: From GB to minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 103–38.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1995. Logical form. Government and binding theory and the minimalist program, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, 125–75. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. Syntax and semantics 4, ed. by Kimball, John, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783111682228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1996. Raising quantifiers without quantifier raising. Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework, ed. by Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel, Thráinsson, Höskuldur, and Jan-Wouter Zwart, C., 189–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.12.10kitCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85. 211–59.10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973a. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973b. Nihon bunpoo kenkyu (A study of Japanese grammar). Tokyo: Taisyukan.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1991. Remarks on quantifier scope. Current English linguistics in Japan, ed. by Nakajima, Heizo, 261–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110854213.261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Kaburaki, Etsuko. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 627–72.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Takami, Ken-ichi. 1993. Grammar and discourse principles: Functional syntax and GB theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1997. Remarks on negative islands. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 553–76.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1999. Quantifier scope in Japanese. Cambridge, MA & Tokyo: Harvard University & Tokyo Metropolitan University, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Lingvisticae Investigationes 21. 1–46.10.1075/li.12.1.02kurCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzweil, Raymond. 1990. The age of intelligent machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1975. Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. The scope of American linguistics, ed. by Austerlitz, Robert, 77–133. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988a. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 589–632.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988b. Light predicate raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Liu, Feng-hsi. 1990. Scope dependency in English and Chinese. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 1996. Minimalism, scope, and VP structure. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 265–99.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1988. Is LF distinct from S-structure? A reply to May. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 135–46.Google Scholar
Wu, Yuru. 1992. Anaphora and quantifier scope in Chinese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar