It is widely stated that the scope of quantifiers is clause-bound (Chomsky 1977, May 1977, Farkas 1981, 1997, Fodor and Sag 1982, Aoun and Hornstein 1985, Beghelli 1993, Abusch 1994, Hornstein 1995, Fox and Sauerland 1997, and numerous others). This claim is based on the observation that (1a) has no reading in which reviewers covary with plays, while (2a) does.

(1)

  • a.

    A reviewer thinks every play will fail this season.

  • b.

    *[TP every playi [TP a reviewer thinks [CP ei will fail this season]]]

(2)

  • a.

    A reviewer attended every play this season.

  • b.

    [TP every playi [TP a reviewer attended ei this season]]

Current theories capture the contrast by making Quantifier Raising (QR), the covert syntactic operation that assigns scope to quantified noun phrases (QPs), clause-bound. Only in (2a), in which the universally quantified QP every play and the indefinite a reviewer are clausemates, can the universal QP raise to scope over the indefinite, yielding the Logical Form representation (LF) in (2b). This operation is prohibited for (1a) because the two NPs are not clausemates; hence, the LF in (1b) is illicit.

While this observation seems empirically well-grounded, its theoretical basis is less secure. Such clause-boundedness makes QR rather more restricted than one would expect a representative Ā-movement to be (see Reinhart 1997, Cecchetto 2004 for discussion). In what follows, I recap Fox’s (1995, 2000) theory of Scope Economy, which provides an explanation for QR’s clause-boundedness. I then introduce new data involving the interaction between QPs and certain instances of negation that are problematic for this approach. I conclude by sketching an alternative.

1 An Economy-Based Account of Quantifier Raising

Like many who research QR, Fox (1995, 2000) implicitly adopts what Beghelli and Stowell (1997) call Scope Uniformity: QR applies uniformly to all QPs and is not landing-site-selective. Any QP can be adjoined to any (nonargument) XP where it is interpretable. Further restricting this quite general assumption, economy considerations dictate that QR can apply only if it has an effect on semantic interpretation.1 QR cannot apply if the derivation without it would yield the same meaning.

(3)

  • Scope Economy (Fox 2000:23)

  • QR must have a semantic effect.

Fox (2000:62–66) proposes that the clause-boundedness of QR follows from Scope Economy. By (3), every application of QR must induce a change in semantic interpretation. At the same time, given that QR is an instance of Ā-movement, each application is subject to locality constraints on movement, which Fox formulates as Shortest Move.2

(4)

  • Shortest Move (Fox 2000:23)

  • QR moves a QP to the closest position in which it is interpretable.

The impossibility of cross-clausal QR follows from a tension between Scope Economy and Shortest Move. QR that does not obey Shortest Move is illicit, but QR that targets a clausal node, obeying Shortest Move, will not normally yield a new semantic interpretation, violating Scope Economy.

Returning to (1a), the two constraints derive the unavailability of the non-clause-bound reading of the universal QP in this example, repeated below as (5a). Two potential LFs for the wide scope reading of the QP every play are given in (5b–c). In (5b), every play raises directly to a position above the matrix subject; however, this violates Shortest Move since adjunction to the embedded clause is a closer interpretable position. In (5c), the QP every play targets the embedded clausal node to satisfy Shortest Move; however, Scope Economy is now violated because the move has no semantic consequence. As a result, the embedded QP has no extra, wide scope interpretation, as desired.

(5)

  • a.

    A reviewer thinks every play will fail this season.

  • b.

    *[TP every playi [TP a reviewer thinks [CP[TP ei will fail this season]]]]

  • c.

    *[TP every playi [TP a reviewer thinks [CP ei [CP[TP ei will fail this season]]]]]

2 Overriding Clause-Boundedness

Fox (2000:63) points out that the Scope Economy account makes a surprising prediction: QR’s clause-boundedness could be overridden if adjunction to CP (as in (5c)) had semantic motivation. Specifically, if the CP projection contained an element that the QP could scopally interact with, then Scope Economy would license cross-clausal movement.

(6)

graphic

Fox (2000:64) offers one set of data, from Moltmann and Szabolcsi 1994, that instantiates the configuration in (6) and seems to confirm the prediction. In (7), the needed scopal element is a wh-phrase in Spec,CP.

(7)

  • a.

    A reviewer knows when every play will fail.

  • b.

    [TP every playi [TP a reviewer knows [CP ei [CP whenj [TP ei will fail ej]]]]]

(7a), unlike (5a), is ambiguous and has a reading in which the embedded QP every play takes scope over the matrix subject: every play is such that some reviewer or other knows when it will fail. The corresponding LF in (7b) is permitted because the intermediate adjunction to CP forced by Shortest Move has the semantic effect of causing the universal QP to take scope over the wh-phrase in Spec,CP. At the same time, Moltmann and Szabolcsi (1994) and Szabolcsi (1997a) argue that cross-clausal QR is not the correct mechanism to derive the wide scope reading in (7). These authors propose an alternative ‘‘layered quantifier’’ analysis that respects clause-boundedness. The goal of this squib is to test Fox’s prediction in a domain that is not open to Moltmann and Szabolcsi’s objections.

An alternative instantiation of (6) that would be suitable for testing the prediction places a negative head in C0, what I will call CPNegation. As is well-known, negation introduces scope ambiguities and should thus be a prime candidate for licensing an application of QR adjunction to CP under Scope Economy.3 As above, in such a situation QR would obey Shortest Move and yield a semantically distinct interpretation, the wide scope reading of the QP with respect to CP-negation. Both of the LFs in (8) should be licensed—that is, whether QR applies or not. (The notation X > Y indicates that X takes scope over Y.)

(8)

graphic

The data to come show that QPs cannot take scope over CP-negation. The clause-boundedness of QR is in fact not overridden. This is problematic for the Scope Economy–based explanation.

3 Scope Interactions with Negation

It has become increasingly clear that not all QPs have the same scope options (Kroch 1979, Beghelli 1993, 1995, Liu 1997, Szabolcsi 1997b). Beghelli (1995) and Szabolcsi (1997b) identify four non-wh quantifier types:

(9)

  • a.

    Negative quantifiers: no

  • b.

    Distributive universal quantifiers: each, every

  • c.

    Group-denoting quantifiers: indefinites (a, some), bare numerals, partitives

  • d.

    Counting quantifiers: few, fewer than, more than, at most, at least, etc.

As Beghelli (1995:136–166) discusses, not all of these quantifiers interact equally with negation.4 In the crucial data to follow, I will use Beghelli’s counting quantifiers, which include complex numerical expressions such as at least three and at most two. They interact scopally with negation, as illustrated by the ambiguity in (10).

(10)

  • a.

    She didn’t answer at least two questions.

  • b.

    graphic

    (i.e., One is required to answer at least two questions, but she did not do that.)

  • c.

    graphic

4 The Scope Data

There are a number of constructions in English in which negation, in the form of a contracted auxiliary like don’t, occurs in C0. I consider three: imperatives, declaratives with negative constituent preposing, and interrogatives. In all cases, we will see that a potential scope ambiguity between CP-negation and a QP is resolved in favor of a lone NEG > Q interpretation.

Beukema and Coopmans (1989) and I (Potsdam 1998) argue that negative inverted imperatives such as (11a–c) have the desired structure with don’t in C0 and the imperative subject in Spec,TP, as shown in (11d).

(11)

  • a.

    Don’t you eat the last piece of cake!

  • b.

    Don’t everyone go!

  • c.

    Don’t anyone tease him!

  • d.

    [CP[C′ don’ti [TP everyone ti [VP expect a raise]]]]

Negative inverted imperatives containing a QP are unambiguous, regardless of the position of the QP (see Schmerling 1982, Potsdam 1998, Moon 1999). (12a), for example, has only the interpretation in (12b), the wide scope reading of negation, and not the interpretation in (12c), the reading where the QP takes inverse scope.

(12)

  • a.

    Don’t more than four people go on vacation!

  • b.

    graphic

    (i.e., Fewer than four people go on vacation!)

  • c.

    graphic

    (i.e., *More than four people don’t go on vacation!)

We can sharpen the judgment by placing the example in a context that favors the inverse scope reading. In such a case, the example is infelicitous.

(13) All the student employees want to go away for spring break, but the library has to stay open for the week and at least five students are needed to staff the circulation desk—one for each day. More than four people have to not go on vacation so that the library can remain open. #So, don’t more than four people go on vacation!

The example in (14a) makes the same point in a different way. We can make sense of its infelicity because the only available meaning, the narrow scope interpretation of the QP with respect to negation in (14b), is pragmatically odd. One doesn’t normally place a lower bound on how many test questions someone shouldn’t skip. The inverse scope reading in (14c) is sensible but seemingly unavailable.

(14)

  • a.

    #Don’t anybody skip at least three questions!

  • b.

    graphic

    (#Nobody skip at least three questions!)

  • c.

    graphic

The same pattern appears with CP-negation in negative constituent preposing, illustrated in (15). This construction is widely analyzed using T0-to-C0 movement (see Koster 1975, Emonds 1976, Progovac 1994, Haegeman 1995, Rizzi 1996).

(15)

  • a.

    Never have we seen such a mess.

  • b.

    Only under duress will Joey share his chewing gum.

  • c.

    [CP never [C′ havei [TP we ti [VP seen such a mess]]]]

An inverted negative auxiliary in this construction also obligatorily takes wide scope with respect to clause-internal QPs.

(16)

  • a.

    Only this semester didn’t John fail at least one student.

  • b.

    graphic

  • c.

    graphic

(17) provides a context that favors the inverse scope reading, but the example is infelicitous. [pa

(17) John is an incredibly difficult professor. Usually, everyone who takes his class fails. This semester, miraculously, Albert took his class and passed it. Everyone else still failed. #Thus, only this semester didn’t John fail at least one student.

Paraphrases with clause-internal negation are acceptable in this context, (18), because the QP can scope over internal negation.

(18)

  • a.

    John didn’t fail at least one student this semester.

  • b.

    Only this semester did John not fail at least one student.

Finally, subject-auxiliary inversion in English interrogatives is standardly analyzed in terms of T0-to-C0 movement (e.g., Koster 1975,, Koopman 1984, Chomsky 1986). As above, a QP obligatorily takes narrow scope with respect to CP-negation (Rupp 1998:154, citing Andrew Radford, pers. comm.).

(19)

  • a.

    Don’t at least two women candidates realize they are being used to split the vote?

  • b.

    graphic

  • c.

    graphic

The Scope Economy–based approach to QR clause-boundedness wrongly predicts the above examples to be ambiguous. To illustrate, (20b) is the available LF corresponding to the unavailable interpretation of (12), repeated as (20a).

(20)

  • a.

    Don’t more than four people go on vacation!

  • b.

    [CP more than four peoplej [CP[C′ don’ti [IP tj ti [VP go on vacation]]]]]

Raising more than four people from the subject position to an adjunction position above negation satisfies Shortest Move and Scope Economy since it yields an interpretation distinct from the derivation in which it does not apply; nevertheless, the MORETHAN 4 > NEG interpretation is not possible.5

5 Conclusion

I suggest that the above data are representative of a larger pattern, the CP-Negation Scope Generalization.

(21)

  • The CP-Negation Scope Generalization

  • CP-negation takes wide scope with respect to QPs in its clause.

Scope Economy derives the unexpected clause-boundedness of QR; however, it does not capture (21) and overgenerates readings in examples with CP-negation. It remains to be determined whether the theory can be modified to avoid these results.6

The inability of a QP to take scope over CP-negation suggests that CP is not a possible target adjunction site for QR, a stipulation made by a number of researchers (e.g., May 1985, Cecchetto 2004). If we assume this, then clause-boundedness may follow in combination with an independently needed theory of successive cyclicity. A core result of research in bounding theory within the Government-Binding tradition and phase theory within the Minimalist Program is that CPs are cyclic nodes for cross-clausal movement (but see Rackowski and Richards 2005 and Den Dikken 2009).7 If CP is simply not a possible adjunction site for QR, then a QP will not be able to raise out of its clause without violating Subjacency or the Phase Impenetrability Condition. We have an alternative answer to the clause-boundedness independent of Scope Economy. If such an approach is on the right track, it nonetheless remains to be explained why adjunction to CP is not a possible landing site for QR.8

Notes

1 An exception is that QR is obligatory for semantic type considerations. QR must apply to move a QP from within VP to a position where it can be interpreted, sister to a clause-denoting expression of type t (Fox 2000:23). Thus, the first possible, and required, adjunction site for QR is VP.

2 Cecchetto (2004) uses the more current Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001) as the relevant movement locality constraint.

3 I follow Ladusaw (1988) in assuming that the scope of negation is fixed by its surface position in C0. There is no Neg-Raising or Neg-Lowering at LF. In particular, negation in C0 does not reconstruct to T0. If CP-negation could reconstruct, it would only increase the likelihood of the grammar allowing the unavailable scope readings in (12c), (14c), (16c), and (19c) in which negation has narrow scope with respect to a QP.

4 The negative quantifier no and the distributive universal quantifier each are degraded to varying degrees with negation.

(i)

Every-QPs are grammatical with negation, but for many speakers they cannot take inverse scope over c-commanding negation: (iia) is unambiguous for these speakers and does not have the inverse scope reading in (iic). Other speakers allow both readings. Every is standardly taken as the prototypical quantifier, but I will not use it for this reason. See Horn 1989, Hornstein 1995, and Mayr and Spector 2010 for some discussion of every and negation.

(ii)

graphic

Group QPs such as indefinites and bare numerals do interact scopally with negation; however, such QPs also allow a specific reading that has unlimited upward scope (e.g., Fodor and Sag 1982, Heim 1982, Ruys 1992, 2006, Abusch 1994, Beghelli 1995, Farkas 1997, Liu 1997). Fodor and Sag (1982) point out that the specific reading of group QPs can escape scope islands, such as conditional clauses. This specific reading is not equivalent to the inverse wide scope reading and arguably results from a different mechanism than QR (Reinhart 1997, Kratzer 1998). Group QPs thus also need to be avoided in the crucial data to follow because an apparent wide scope reading may appear that is in fact the difficult-to-distinguish specific reading.

5 An anonymous reviewer offers an example in which a clause-internal QP does scope over CP-negation.

(i) Only on Monday didn’t some representative from every city come to the workshop.

The inverse-linking example (i) has an interpretation in which only on Monday, for every city, there was some representative from it who didn’t come to the workshop. In this interpretation, EVERY has scope over NEG ; however, the derivation of the EVERY > NEG interpretation does not require QR of every city over CP-negation. May (1985) argues that the every-QP embedded in the subject moves by QR only as far as the edge of the subject noun phrase and no farther.

6 If correct, the generalization would confirm Moltmann and Szabolcsi’s (1994) assertion that Fox’s (2000) account of (7) is not correct.

7 Assuming that CP is not a cyclic node does not in and of itself derive QR’s clause-boundedness, as both Rackowski and Richards (2005) and Den Dikken (2009) assume that successive-cyclic Ā-movement via Spec,vP does still occur.

8 An anonymous reviewer suggests an analysis of (21) using Rizzi’s (1997) exploded CP. Suppose that CP is deconstructed into the hierarchy ForceP > Pol(arity)P > FocusP > TP. If CP-negation moves to Pol0 but QR targets FocusP, then negation will always take wide scope.

References

Abusch
,
Dorit
.
1994
.
The scope of indefinites
.
Natural Language Semantics
2
:
83
115
.
Aoun
,
Joseph
, and
Norbert
Hornstein
.
1985
.
Quantifier types
.
Linguistic Inquiry
16
:
623
637
.
Beghelli
,
Filippo
.
1993
.
A Minimalist approach to quantifier scope
. In
NELS 23
, ed. by
Amy
Schafer
,
65
80
.
Amherst
:
University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association
.
Beghelli
,
Filippo
.
1995
.
The phrase structure of quantifier scope
.
Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA
.
Beghelli
,
Filippo
, and
Tim
Stowell
.
1997
.
Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every
. In
Ways of scope taking
, ed. by
Anna
Szabolcsi
,
71
108
.
Dordrecht
:
Kluwer
.
Beukema
,
Frits
, and
Peter
Coopmans
.
1989
.
A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English
.
Journal of Linguistics
25
:
417
436
.
Cecchetto
,
Carlo
.
2004
.
Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases
.
Natural Language Semantics
12
:
345
397
.
Chomsky
,
Noam
.
1977
.
Essays on form and interpretation
.
New York
:
North-Holland
.
Chomsky
,
Noam
.
1986
.
Barriers
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Chomsky
,
Noam
.
2001
.
Derivation by phase
. In
Ken Hale: A life in language
, ed. by
Michael
Kenstowicz
,
1
52
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Dikken
,
Marcel den
.
2009
.
On the nature and distribution of successive cyclicity
. .
Emonds
,
Joseph E
.
1976
.
A transformational approach to English syntax
.
New York
:
Academic Press
.
Farkas
,
Donka
.
1981
.
Quantifier scope and syntactic islands
. In
Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society
, ed. by
Roberta
Hendrick
,
Carrie
Masek
, and
Mary Frances
Miller
,
59
66
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society
.
Farkas
,
Donka
.
1997
.
Evaluation indices and scope
. In
Ways of scope taking
, ed. by
Anna
Szabolcsi
,
183
216
.
Dordrecht
:
Kluwer
.
Fodor
,
Janet Dean
, and
Ivan
Sag
.
1982
.
Referential and quantificational indefinites
.
Linguistics and Philosophy
5
:
355
398
.
Fox
,
Danny
.
1995
.
Economy and scope
.
Natural Language Semantics
3
:
283
341
.
Fox
,
Danny
.
2000
.
Economy and semantic interpretation
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Fox
,
Danny
, and
Uli
Sauerland
.
1997
.
The illusive scope of universal quantifiers
. In
NELS 26
, ed. by
Jill
Beckman
,
71
85
.
Amherst
:
University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association
.
Haegeman
,
Liliane
.
1995
.
The syntax of negation
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Heim
,
Irene
.
1982
.
The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases
.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
.
Horn
,
Laurence R
.
1989
.
A natural history of negation
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Hornstein
,
Norbert
.
1995
.
Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism
.
Oxford
:
Blackwell
.
Koopman
,
Hilda
.
1984
.
The syntax of verbs: From verb-movement rules in the Kru languages to Universal Grammar
.
Dordrecht
:
Foris
.
Koster
,
Jan
.
1975
.
Dutch as an SOV language
.
Linguistic Analysis
1
:
111
136
.
Kratzer
,
Angelika
.
1998
.
Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide scope indefinites?
In
Events in grammar
, ed. by
Susan
Rothstein
,
163
196
.
Dordrecht
:
Kluwer
.
Kroch
,
Anthony
.
1979
.
The semantics of scope in English
.
New York
:
Garland
.
Ladusaw
,
William
.
1988
.
Adverbs, negation, and QR
. In
Linguistics in the morning calm 2
, ed. by
the Linguistic Society of Korea
,
481
488
.
Seoul
:
Hanshin
.
Liu
,
Feng-Hsi
.
1997
.
Scope and specificity
.
Amsterdam
:
John Benjamins
.
May
,
Robert
.
1977
.
The grammar of quantification
.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA
.
May
,
Robert
.
1985
.
Logical Form: Its syntax and derivation
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Mayr
,
Clemens
, and
Benjamin
Spector
.
2010
.
Not too strong! Generalizing the Scope Economy Condition
. In
Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14
, ed. by
Martin
Prinzhorn
,
Viola
Schmitt
, and
Sarah
Zobel
,
305
321
.
Vienna
:
Department of Linguistics
.
Available at http://www.univie.ac.at.sub14/. Accessed 16 April 2013
.
Moltmann
,
Friederike
, and
Anna
Szabolcsi
.
1994
.
Scope interaction with pair-list quantifiers
. In
NELS 24
, ed. by
Mercè
Gonzàlez
,
381
395
.
Amherst
:
University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association
.
Moon
,
Grace
.
1999
.
Don’t imperatives
. In
Harvard working papers in linguistics 7
, ed. by
Bert
Vaux
and
Susumu
Kuno
,
93
107
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University, Department of Linguistics
.
Postal
,
Paul M
.
1974
.
On raising
,
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Potsdam
,
Eric
.
1998
.
Syntactic issues in the English imperative
.
New York
:
Garland
.
Progovac
,
Ljiljana
.
1994
.
Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Rackowski
,
Andrea
, and
Norvin
Richards
.
2005
.
Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study
.
Linguistic Inquiry
36
:
565
599
.
Reinhart
,
Tanya
.
1997
.
Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions
.
Linguistics and Philosophy
20
:
335
397
.
Rizzi
,
Luigi
.
1996
.
Residual verb second and the Wh-Criterion
. In
Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax
, ed. by
Adriana
Belletti
and
Luigi
Rizzi
,
63
90
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Rizzi
,
Luigi
.
1997
.
The fine structure of the left periphery
. In
Elements of grammar
, ed. by
Liliane
Haegeman
,
281
337
.
Dordrecht
:
Kluwer
.
Rupp
,
Laura
.
1998
.
Aspects of the syntax of English imperatives
.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex
.
Ruys
,
Eddy
.
1992
.
The scope of indefinites
.
Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University
.
Ruys
,
Eddy
.
2006
.
Unexpected wide-scope phenomena
. In
The Blackwell companion to syntax
, ed. by
Martin
Everaert
and
Henk
van Riemsdijk
,
5
:
175
228
.
Malden, MA
:
Blackwell
.
Schmerling
,
Susan
.
1982
.
How imperatives are special and how they aren’t
. In
Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, Chicago Linguistic Society
, ed. by
Robert
Schneider
,
Kevin
Tuite
, and
Robert
Chametzky
,
202
218
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society
.
Szabolcsi
,
Anna
.
1997a
.
Quantifiers in pair-list readings
. In
Ways of scope taking
, ed. by
Anna
Szabolcsi
,
311
348
.
Dordrecht
:
Kluwer
.
Szabolcsi
,
Anna
, ed.
1997b
.
Ways of scope taking
.
Dordrecht
:
Kluwer
.