Rethinking Scope Islands

Bibliographic Data

ID5015561
AuthorsChris Barker (0000-0002-9268-9356, Department of Linguistics New York University [email protected], corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume53
Issue4
Pages633-661
Publication date2022-10-03
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueLinguistic Inquiry (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0024-3892 • E-ISSN: 1530-9150
PublisherThe MIT Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1162/ling_a_00419
OpenAlexW3119228498
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited34

Relative clauses and tensed clauses are standardly assumed to be scope islands. However, naturally occurring counterexamples are abundant and easy to find. Therefore, we should revisit analyses that reject Quantifier Raising on the assumption that QR is clause-bounded. The data show that scope islands are sensitive to the identity of both the scope-taker and the predicate embedding the island. I propose the Scope Island Subset Constraint: given two scope islands, the scope-takers trapped by one will be a subset of the scope-takers trapped by the other. A simple refinement of semantic types allows encoding and enforcing of scope islands

Counterexample · Discrete mathematics · Epistemology · Linguistics · Predicate (mathematical logic) · Programming language · Quantifier (linguistics) · Raising (metalworking) · Scope (computer science) · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge · Mathematics · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Philosophy · semigroups and automata theory · Theoretical Computer Science

Tools

Open DOI