128:(non-split) reading, this sentence means that there is no employee such that the company needs to fire that employee. This is a non-split scope reading since "no" simply takes scope above the modal "need". On the split scope reading of this sentence, it means that it is not the case that the company needs to fire any employees. On this reading, "no" decomposes into a negation scoping above "need" and an
358:
to govern scopal relations. Since type shifters are applied during the process of semantic interpretation, this approach allows scopal relations to be partly independent of syntactic structure. The type shifting approach serves as the basis of many recent proposals for exceptional scope, split scope,
201:
While operators can often take scope above their surface position, there are not entirely free to take scope wherever they want. For instance, as illustrated by
Sentence 1 below, quantifiers that originate inside an if-clause usually cannot take scope outside of that "if"-clause. This sentence cannot
246:
While most operators are unable to scope out of an island, others can. For instance, the indefinite "a" in the sentence below can take scope outside of its surface position inside an "if"-clause. This sentence can mean that there is a particular relative who must die for the speaker to get a house.
151:
Among this sentence's reading is one which means "There exists a set of three relatives such that, if those three relatives die, I will inherit a house." On this reading, the indefinite "three relatives of mine" takes existential scope outside the conditional–– it asserts unconditionally that those
188:
This noun phrase is felicitous to use in this context, even though there is no unique hat. What seems to license this surprising use of the definite description is the fact that the context contains a unique rabbit-containing hat. To cash out this idea, it has been proposed that the uniqueness
275:. Recent work such as Charlow (2020) treats indefinites as denoting sets of individuals which can be type shifted so that they take scope in a manner similar to Karttunen's (1977) alternative-based mechanism for wh-questions.
115:
Split scope is the phenomenon where different components of an expressions item's meaning take scope in different places. Negative quantifiers are one category of expression which have been argued to take split scope.
238:
Aside from their theoretical significance, scope islands are also practically useful since they can be used to construct unambiguous paraphrases of sentences with scope ambiguities.
62:, in which an item's syntactic position corresponds to its semantic scope. Others theories compute scope relations in the semantics itself, using formal tools such as type shifters,
287:
152:
three relatives do in fact exist. However, it the indefinite takes distributive scope inside the conditional–– the speaker will inherit a house if three relatives die, not if
301:
is one influential view which posits a close relationship between syntax and semantics. This approach is characterized by the following hypothesis, first formulated by
1112:
339:. The movement approach is motivated in large part by the fact that quantifier scope seems to obey many of the same restrictions that movement does, e.g.
1871:
174:
in a context where there are multiple cats which the speaker could have in mind. However, this generalization seems to be contradicted by
312:: The semantic scope of an operator corresponds to the position of the item which expresses it at some level of syntactic representation.
1075:; Rooth, Mats (1983). "Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity". In von Stechow, Arnim; Schwarze, Christoph; Bauerle, Rainer (eds.).
1175:
1649:
50:
and their semantic scope. This relationship is not transparent, since the scope of an operator need not directly correspond to its
267:, indefinites contribute a variable over choice functions which can be existentially closed at any point higher in the structure.
1896:
271:
proposed another choice function-based theory, which is similar to
Reinhart's except that the choice function variable is left
1010:
948:
825:
665:
461:
51:
1517:
1184:
331:
In structural approaches, discrepancies between an expression's surface position and its semantic scope are explained by
1092:
1056:
754:
711:
531:
235:
Examples of this sort have been used to argue that scope relations are determined by syntactic movement operations.
630:. The 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 2. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
1891:
1604:
1141:
1725:
1599:
1258:
1168:
1127:
63:
20:
189:
presupposition of "the hat" takes scope separately from the rest of the definite's meaning. In other words, a
1377:
1198:
1263:
320:
approaches such as that of Heim and
Kratzer (1998). In these approaches, the relevant syntactic level is
1876:
1745:
1407:
1228:
386:
371:
321:
59:
58:
between different scope construals. Some theories of scope posit a level of syntactic structure called
1750:
1700:
1462:
1351:
1161:
1805:
1669:
391:
770:
Reinhart, Tanya (1997). "Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions".
27:
of a semantic operator is the semantic object to which it applies. For instance, in the sentence "
1800:
1346:
1029:
727:
684:
504:
46:
One of the major concerns of research in formal semantics is the relationship between operators'
39:, but the proposition that Paulina drinks wine does not. Scope can be thought of as the semantic
1033:
731:
688:
508:
1830:
1502:
1472:
1447:
1387:
1286:
1218:
381:
256:
129:
812:. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Vol. 70. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 163–196.
808:(1998). "Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?". In Rothstein, Susan (ed.).
1730:
1624:
1589:
1477:
1452:
1296:
1213:
190:
171:
163:
107:
reading, the sentence can be true even if the hedgehogs are friends with different giraffes.
1861:
1715:
1522:
1301:
340:
987:
939:(1979). "Syntactic domains for semantic rules". In GĂĽnthner, Franz; Schmidt, J.S. (eds.).
642:
438:
8:
1795:
1710:
1654:
1557:
1542:
1512:
1492:
1467:
1336:
1321:
103:
reading, there is a single giraffe who is very popular in the hedgehog community. On the
40:
324:
and the syntactic notion which corresponds to semantic scope is typically identified as
1866:
1840:
1765:
1740:
1705:
1685:
1614:
1594:
1532:
1527:
1437:
1427:
1412:
1356:
1133:
897:
862:
787:
604:
376:
336:
332:
317:
55:
1153:
1820:
1775:
1760:
1720:
1659:
1629:
1609:
1402:
1331:
1123:
1088:
1052:
1006:
944:
866:
821:
750:
707:
661:
623:
608:
527:
457:
170:
that their referents are unique. For instance, the definite description "the cat" is
1137:
1120:
Studies in
Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers
901:
791:
581:
255:
Examples of this sort have been used to argue that indefinites do not have standard
182:
Context: In front of the speaker are numerous hats, one of which contains a rabbit.
1886:
1825:
1755:
1644:
1422:
1080:
1044:
998:
968:
889:
854:
813:
805:
779:
742:
699:
653:
596:
519:
449:
419:
268:
166:
have also been argued to have split scope. Definites are classically considered to
1881:
1634:
1537:
1432:
1397:
628:
Proceedings of The 10th
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
478:
260:
193:
is establishes low in the structure, but is checked for singletonness higher up.
1002:
817:
657:
453:
91:
in that the relative scopes of two operators can be construed in multiple ways.
1815:
1810:
1735:
1619:
1497:
1392:
1233:
1108:
1084:
1072:
936:
918:
858:
547:
351:
302:
290:
264:
167:
1048:
783:
746:
703:
600:
523:
1855:
1507:
1482:
1316:
272:
1770:
1695:
1562:
1442:
1326:
1306:
396:
355:
67:
1690:
1664:
1547:
1311:
1238:
211:
32:
1835:
1487:
1253:
1208:
1203:
964:
893:
842:
582:"Split-scope definites: Relative superlatives and Haddock descriptions"
415:
84:
1639:
1457:
1382:
1361:
1291:
1243:
1223:
325:
87:
of the sentence it occurs in. For instance, some sentences display a
1552:
1341:
36:
135:
Indefinites have been argued to have split scope, having separate
1118:. In Groenendijk, Jeroen; de Jong, Dick; Stokhof, Martin (eds.).
286:
624:"Incremental interpretation and Combinatory Categorial Grammar"
47:
880:
Karttunen, Lauri (1977). "Syntax and semantics of questions".
202:
mean that Beth will inherit one house for each dead relative.
1417:
125:
83:
The scope of an operator need not correspond directly to the
485:. University of California, Santa Cruz Linguistic Department
1113:"Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles"
346:
One prominent alternative to the structural view is the
210:
This fact parallels the fact that a wh-phrase cannot be
1183:
843:"The scope of alternatives: Indefiniteness and islands"
206:
If every relative of mine dies, I will inherit a house.
147:
If three relatives of mine die, I will inherit a house.
997:(2 ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 159–225.
941:
Formal
Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages
448:(2 ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 159–225.
99:
This sentence can be understood in two ways. On the
35:
that
Paulina drinks beer occurs within the scope of
251:
If a relative of mine dies, I will inherit a house.
143:. This fact can be seen in the following example:
29:Paulina doesn't drink beer but she does drink wine
1853:
1650:Segmented discourse representation theory (SDRT)
652:(2 ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. Section 3.2.
1043:(2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. pp. 40–76.
359:and other troublesome scope-related phenomena.
1169:
281:
214:from an "if"-clause, as shown in Sentence 2.
1077:Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language
975:. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. pp. 184–188.
698:(2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Section 1.6.
518:(2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Section 4.3.
426:. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. pp. 194–198.
16:Semantic object to which an operator applies
1071:
993:. In Gabbay, Dov; Guenthner, Franz (eds.).
963:
648:. In Gabbay, Dov; Guenthner, Franz (eds.).
444:. In Gabbay, Dov; Guenthner, Franz (eds.).
414:
293:pioneered the structural approach to scope.
1176:
1162:
985:
741:(2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Section 5.
640:
436:
184:Haddock description: The rabbit in the hat
988:"Quantifier scope in formal linguistics."
917:
879:
643:"Quantifier scope in formal linguistics."
554:. Cambridge University Press. p. 92.
546:
439:"Quantifier scope in formal linguistics."
95:Every hedgehog is friends with a giraffe.
1079:. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 334–356.
1039:. In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.).
935:
769:
737:. In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.).
694:. In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.).
514:. In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.).
285:
840:
804:
621:
579:
1854:
1107:
1028:
726:
683:
503:
1605:Discourse representation theory (DRT)
1157:
1024:
1022:
913:
911:
679:
677:
476:
160:can be any of those three relatives.
564:
241:
1872:Formal semantics (natural language)
1518:Quantificational variability effect
1185:Formal semantics (natural language)
479:"When even no's Neg is splitsville"
354:and Mats Rooth. This approach uses
120:The company need fire no employees.
13:
1041:Handbook of Contemporary Semantics
1019:
908:
739:Handbook of Contemporary Semantics
696:Handbook of Contemporary Semantics
674:
516:Handbook of Contemporary Semantics
78:
14:
1908:
986:Ruys, Eddy; Winter, Yoad (2011).
641:Ruys, Eddy; Winter, Yoad (2011).
437:Ruys, Eddy; Winter, Yoad (2011).
310:Hypothesis about scope and domain
54:and a single surface form can be
196:
1101:
1065:
995:Handbook of Philosophical Logic
979:
973:Semantics in Generative Grammar
957:
929:
873:
834:
798:
763:
720:
650:Handbook of Philosophical Logic
446:Handbook of Philosophical Logic
424:Semantics in Generative Grammar
316:This view is widely adopted in
1600:Combinatory categorial grammar
634:
615:
573:
558:
540:
497:
470:
430:
408:
224:will you inherit a fortune if
110:
1:
1378:Antecedent-contained deletion
925:. Cambridge University Press.
402:
73:
7:
1003:10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_3
818:10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8
658:10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_3
454:10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_3
365:
10:
1913:
1897:Syntax–semantics interface
1259:Syntax–semantics interface
1085:10.1002/9780470758335.ch14
882:Linguistics and Philosophy
859:10.1007/s10988-019-09278-3
847:Linguistics and Philosophy
772:Linguistics and Philosophy
622:Haddock, Nicholas (1987).
589:Linguistics and Philosophy
569:(PhD). Utrecht University.
387:Logical form (linguistics)
372:Continuation-passing style
282:Formal approaches to scope
1788:
1751:Question under discussion
1701:Conversational scoreboard
1678:
1582:
1575:
1478:Intersective modification
1463:Homogeneity (linguistics)
1370:
1279:
1272:
1191:
1049:10.1002/9781118882139.ch2
747:10.1002/9781118882139.ch2
704:10.1002/9781118882139.ch2
601:10.1007/s10988-017-9210-2
524:10.1002/9781118882139.ch2
1806:Distributional semantics
943:. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
567:The scope of indefinites
392:Quantifier (linguistics)
299:structural view of scope
1801:Computational semantics
1543:Subsective modification
1347:Propositional attitudes
841:Charlow, Simon (2020).
784:10.1023/A:1005349801431
580:Bumford, Dylan (2017).
178:such as the following:
1892:Philosophy of language
1831:Philosophy of language
1473:Inalienable possession
1453:Free choice inferences
1448:Faultless disagreement
1219:Generalized quantifier
483:Jorge Hankamer WebFest
382:Generalized quantifier
294:
257:generalized quantifier
130:existential quantifier
56:semantically ambiguous
1731:Plural quantification
1625:Inquisitive semantics
1590:Alternative semantics
477:Potts, Chris (2000).
289:
263:approach proposed by
164:Definite descriptions
1716:Function application
1523:Responsive predicate
1513:Privative adjectives
1122:. Dordrecht: Foris.
259:denotations. On the
176:Haddock descriptions
1796:Cognitive semantics
1711:Existential closure
1655:Situation semantics
1558:Temperature paradox
1528:Rising declaratives
1493:Modal subordination
1468:Hurford disjunction
1428:Discourse relations
565:Eddy, Ruys (1992).
335:operations such as
48:syntactic positions
41:order of operations
1841:Semantics of logic
1766:Strict conditional
1741:Quantifier raising
1706:Downward entailing
1686:Autonomy of syntax
1615:Generative grammar
1595:Categorial grammar
1533:Scalar implicature
1438:Epistemic modality
1413:De dicto and de re
894:10.1007/BF00351935
810:Events and grammar
377:De dicto and de re
350:first proposed by
348:type shifting view
337:quantifier raising
333:syntactic movement
295:
141:distributive scope
132:scoping below it.
1877:Generative syntax
1849:
1848:
1821:Logic translation
1784:
1783:
1776:Universal grinder
1761:Squiggle operator
1721:Meaning postulate
1660:Supervaluationism
1630:Intensional logic
1610:Dynamic semantics
1571:
1570:
1403:Crossover effects
1352:Tense–aspect–mood
1332:Lexical semantics
1012:978-94-007-0478-7
969:Kratzer, Angelika
950:978-90-277-0778-9
827:978-1-4020-0289-2
806:Kratzer, Angelika
667:978-94-007-0478-7
463:978-94-007-0478-7
420:Kratzer, Angelika
242:Exceptional scope
137:existential scope
1904:
1826:Linguistics wars
1756:Semantic parsing
1645:Montague grammar
1580:
1579:
1423:Deontic modality
1277:
1276:
1264:Truth conditions
1199:Compositionality
1192:Central concepts
1178:
1171:
1164:
1155:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1146:
1140:. Archived from
1117:
1105:
1099:
1098:
1069:
1063:
1062:
1038:
1026:
1017:
1016:
992:
983:
977:
976:
961:
955:
954:
933:
927:
926:
915:
906:
905:
877:
871:
870:
838:
832:
831:
802:
796:
795:
767:
761:
760:
736:
724:
718:
717:
693:
681:
672:
671:
647:
638:
632:
631:
619:
613:
612:
586:
577:
571:
570:
562:
556:
555:
544:
538:
537:
513:
501:
495:
494:
492:
490:
474:
468:
467:
443:
434:
428:
427:
412:
269:Angelika Kratzer
52:surface position
21:formal semantics
1912:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1845:
1780:
1674:
1635:Lambda calculus
1567:
1538:Sloppy identity
1498:Opaque contexts
1433:Donkey anaphora
1398:Counterfactuals
1366:
1268:
1187:
1182:
1152:
1144:
1130:
1115:
1109:Partee, Barbara
1106:
1102:
1095:
1073:Partee, Barbara
1070:
1066:
1059:
1036:
1027:
1020:
1013:
990:
984:
980:
962:
958:
951:
937:Reinhart, Tanya
934:
930:
919:Szabolcsi, Anna
916:
909:
878:
874:
839:
835:
828:
803:
799:
768:
764:
757:
734:
725:
721:
714:
691:
682:
675:
668:
645:
639:
635:
620:
616:
584:
578:
574:
563:
559:
548:Szabolcsi, Anna
545:
541:
534:
511:
502:
498:
488:
486:
475:
471:
464:
441:
435:
431:
413:
409:
405:
368:
362:
284:
278:
261:choice function
244:
229:
223:
199:
183:
113:
89:scope ambiguity
81:
79:Scope ambiguity
76:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1910:
1900:
1899:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1879:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1847:
1846:
1844:
1843:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1823:
1818:
1816:Inferentialism
1813:
1811:Formal grammar
1808:
1803:
1798:
1792:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1782:
1781:
1779:
1778:
1773:
1768:
1763:
1758:
1753:
1748:
1743:
1738:
1736:Possible world
1733:
1728:
1723:
1718:
1713:
1708:
1703:
1698:
1693:
1688:
1682:
1680:
1676:
1675:
1673:
1672:
1667:
1662:
1657:
1652:
1647:
1642:
1637:
1632:
1627:
1622:
1620:Glue semantics
1617:
1612:
1607:
1602:
1597:
1592:
1586:
1584:
1583:Formal systems
1577:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1566:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1540:
1535:
1530:
1525:
1520:
1515:
1510:
1508:Polarity items
1505:
1500:
1495:
1490:
1485:
1480:
1475:
1470:
1465:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1445:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1425:
1420:
1415:
1410:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1393:Conservativity
1390:
1385:
1380:
1374:
1372:
1368:
1367:
1365:
1364:
1359:
1357:Quantification
1354:
1349:
1344:
1339:
1334:
1329:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1289:
1283:
1281:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1267:
1266:
1261:
1256:
1251:
1246:
1241:
1236:
1234:Presupposition
1231:
1226:
1221:
1216:
1211:
1206:
1201:
1195:
1193:
1189:
1188:
1181:
1180:
1173:
1166:
1158:
1151:
1150:
1147:on 2020-02-11.
1128:
1100:
1093:
1064:
1057:
1018:
1011:
978:
956:
949:
928:
923:Quantification
907:
872:
853:(3): 427–472.
833:
826:
797:
778:(4): 335–397.
762:
755:
719:
712:
673:
666:
633:
614:
595:(6): 549–593.
572:
557:
552:Quantification
539:
532:
496:
469:
462:
429:
406:
404:
401:
400:
399:
394:
389:
384:
379:
374:
367:
364:
352:Barbara Partee
314:
313:
303:Tanya Reinhart
291:Tanya Reinhart
283:
280:
265:Tanya Reinhart
253:
252:
243:
240:
233:
232:
227:
219:
218:Which relative
208:
207:
198:
195:
186:
185:
149:
148:
122:
121:
112:
109:
97:
96:
80:
77:
75:
72:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1909:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1880:
1878:
1875:
1873:
1870:
1868:
1865:
1863:
1860:
1859:
1857:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1819:
1817:
1814:
1812:
1809:
1807:
1804:
1802:
1799:
1797:
1794:
1793:
1791:
1787:
1777:
1774:
1772:
1769:
1767:
1764:
1762:
1759:
1757:
1754:
1752:
1749:
1747:
1744:
1742:
1739:
1737:
1734:
1732:
1729:
1727:
1724:
1722:
1719:
1717:
1714:
1712:
1709:
1707:
1704:
1702:
1699:
1697:
1694:
1692:
1689:
1687:
1684:
1683:
1681:
1677:
1671:
1668:
1666:
1663:
1661:
1658:
1656:
1653:
1651:
1648:
1646:
1643:
1641:
1638:
1636:
1633:
1631:
1628:
1626:
1623:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1608:
1606:
1603:
1601:
1598:
1596:
1593:
1591:
1588:
1587:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1526:
1524:
1521:
1519:
1516:
1514:
1511:
1509:
1506:
1504:
1503:Performatives
1501:
1499:
1496:
1494:
1491:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1483:Logophoricity
1481:
1479:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1466:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1456:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1446:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1431:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1421:
1419:
1416:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1363:
1360:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1317:Evidentiality
1315:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1271:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1255:
1252:
1250:
1247:
1245:
1242:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1210:
1207:
1205:
1202:
1200:
1197:
1196:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1179:
1174:
1172:
1167:
1165:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1125:
1121:
1114:
1110:
1104:
1096:
1094:9780470758335
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1068:
1060:
1058:9781118882139
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1035:
1031:
1030:Barker, Chris
1025:
1023:
1014:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
989:
982:
974:
970:
966:
960:
952:
946:
942:
938:
932:
924:
920:
914:
912:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
876:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
837:
829:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
801:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
766:
758:
756:9781118882139
752:
748:
744:
740:
733:
729:
728:Barker, Chris
723:
715:
713:9781118882139
709:
705:
701:
697:
690:
686:
685:Barker, Chris
680:
678:
669:
663:
659:
655:
651:
644:
637:
629:
625:
618:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
583:
576:
568:
561:
553:
549:
543:
535:
533:9781118882139
529:
525:
521:
517:
510:
506:
505:Barker, Chris
500:
484:
480:
473:
465:
459:
455:
451:
447:
440:
433:
425:
421:
417:
411:
407:
398:
395:
393:
390:
388:
385:
383:
380:
378:
375:
373:
370:
369:
363:
360:
357:
356:type shifters
353:
349:
344:
342:
338:
334:
329:
327:
323:
319:
311:
308:
307:
306:
304:
300:
292:
288:
279:
276:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
250:
249:
248:
239:
236:
230:
222:
217:
216:
215:
213:
205:
204:
203:
197:Scope islands
194:
192:
181:
180:
179:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
159:
155:
146:
145:
144:
142:
138:
133:
131:
127:
119:
118:
117:
108:
106:
105:surface scope
102:
101:inverse scope
94:
93:
92:
90:
86:
71:
69:
68:continuations
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
44:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
1771:Type shifter
1746:Quantization
1696:Continuation
1563:Veridicality
1443:Exhaustivity
1408:Cumulativity
1327:Indexicality
1307:Definiteness
1302:Conditionals
1248:
1229:Logical form
1142:the original
1119:
1103:
1076:
1067:
1040:
994:
981:
972:
959:
940:
931:
922:
885:
881:
875:
850:
846:
836:
809:
800:
775:
771:
765:
738:
722:
695:
649:
636:
627:
617:
592:
588:
575:
566:
560:
551:
542:
515:
499:
487:. Retrieved
482:
472:
445:
432:
423:
410:
397:Type shifter
361:
347:
345:
330:
322:logical form
315:
309:
298:
296:
277:
254:
245:
237:
234:
225:
220:
209:
200:
187:
175:
172:infelicitous
162:
157:
153:
150:
140:
136:
134:
123:
114:
104:
100:
98:
88:
82:
60:logical form
45:
28:
24:
18:
1862:Linguistics
1691:Context set
1665:Type theory
1548:Subtrigging
1312:Disjunction
1239:Proposition
965:Heim, Irene
888:(1): 3–44.
416:Heim, Irene
191:witness set
156:dies where
111:Split scope
33:proposition
1856:Categories
1836:Pragmatics
1488:Mirativity
1254:Speech act
1209:Entailment
1204:Denotation
1129:9067652679
403:References
318:generative
168:presuppose
85:word order
1867:Semantics
1640:Mereology
1576:Formalism
1458:Givenness
1383:Cataphora
1371:Phenomena
1362:Vagueness
1292:Ambiguity
1244:Reference
1224:Intension
1214:Extension
867:254749307
609:254742178
489:30 August
326:c-command
212:extracted
74:Phenomena
1789:See also
1679:Concepts
1553:Telicity
1388:Coercion
1342:Negation
1337:Modality
1287:Anaphora
1138:96440512
1111:(1986).
1032:(2015).
971:(1998).
921:(2010).
902:64174420
792:58351641
730:(2015).
687:(2015).
550:(2010).
507:(2015).
422:(1998).
366:See also
37:negation
1887:Grammar
1297:Binding
1034:"Scope"
732:"Scope"
689:"Scope"
509:"Scope"
341:islands
124:On the
31:," the
1882:Syntax
1726:Monads
1273:Topics
1136:
1126:
1091:
1055:
1009:
947:
900:
865:
824:
790:
753:
710:
664:
607:
530:
460:
66:, and
64:monads
23:, the
1418:De se
1322:Focus
1280:Areas
1249:Scope
1145:(PDF)
1134:S2CID
1116:(PDF)
1037:(PDF)
991:(PDF)
898:S2CID
863:S2CID
788:S2CID
735:(PDF)
692:(PDF)
646:(PDF)
605:S2CID
585:(PDF)
512:(PDF)
442:(PDF)
231:dies?
126:de re
25:scope
1124:ISBN
1089:ISBN
1053:ISBN
1007:ISBN
945:ISBN
822:ISBN
751:ISBN
708:ISBN
662:ISBN
528:ISBN
491:2020
458:ISBN
297:The
273:free
139:and
1670:TTR
1081:doi
1045:doi
999:doi
890:doi
855:doi
814:doi
780:doi
743:doi
700:doi
654:doi
597:doi
520:doi
450:doi
43:.
19:In
1858::
1132:.
1087:.
1051:.
1021:^
1005:.
967:;
910:^
896:.
884:.
861:.
851:43
849:.
845:.
820:.
786:.
776:20
774:.
749:.
706:.
676:^
660:.
626:.
603:.
593:40
591:.
587:.
526:.
481:.
456:.
418:;
343:.
328:.
305::
70:.
1177:e
1170:t
1163:v
1097:.
1083::
1061:.
1047::
1015:.
1001::
953:.
904:.
892::
886:1
869:.
857::
830:.
816::
794:.
782::
759:.
745::
716:.
702::
670:.
656::
611:.
599::
536:.
522::
493:.
466:.
452::
228:i
226:t
221:i
158:x
154:x
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
